Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND).

Copy ordered,
of Return showing, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932: (1) the amount contributed by (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland to the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the expenditure on (a) English and Welsh services and (b) Scottish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 207, of Session 1921)."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Buckingham and Oxford) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leek) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Rugby Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Taunton and District Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MARR TRUST.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Court of Session, on 29th Novem-
ber, in regard to the Marr Trust; and if he intends to approve the proposals of the Educational Endowments Commissioners?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend is aware that a decision has been reached by the Court of Session in the case submitted to them regarding the scheme of the Educational Endowments Commissioners for the government and management of the Marr Trust, and he is now proceeding to consider the scheme together with the objections to it that have been lodged.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will the hon. Member not consider whether the time has come, in view of the attitude of the judges on that case, to revise the Education Endowments Act, 1928?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that question arises out of this question. I do not think that the question of revising the Education Endowments Act arises from the decision of the Court of Session.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now considered the report of the inquiry into the proposed Milk Marketing Scheme for Scotland; and what decision he has reached thereon?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have not yet received the report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the recent increase in the landings of herrings at Ayr; and whether any assistance can be given by his Department towards the setting up of the herring-curing industry in that district?

Sir G. COLLINS: My attention has been directed to the recent increase in the landings of herrings at Ayr. The herrings have found a ready sale, mostly for distribution in the home markets, as fresh or kippered herrings. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the markets for cured or pickled herrings are at
present restricted but if curing should become economically advisable at Ayr, there is no reason to doubt that the curing trade could make the necessary arrangements on the industrial side without assistance from the Government. Any administrative facilities, however, which the Fishery Board for Scotland can provide within their powers will be gladly given.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to ensure that the Moray Firth fishermen, who are now preparing for the cod-net fishing, will be able to carry on operations during the coming season without damage to their gear by foreign trawlers?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Fishery Board for Scotland hope to make arrangements with a view to a scheme of protection for the cod-nets on lines similar to that which was in successful operation last season. The success of the protective measures will be greatly facilitated if the fishermen will co-operate by confining their operations to the selected area and by conforming fully with the requirements as to marking and lighting the nets.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the fishermen be consulted regarding these selected areas in which they have to fish?

Sir G. COLLINS: The fishermen have already been consulted and are aware of the selected area.

HOUSING.

Captain MOSS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the committee, of which Sir William Whyte was chairman, has yet reported on the conditions that should apply to the letting of State-aided houses; and, if so, will the report be published for the information of the Members of this House?

Mr. SKELTON: The report of the committee referred to has been received. It will be issued to-morrow as a Stationery Office publication.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. JAMIESON: 7.
to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he proposes to introduce a Bill dealing with housing in Scotland?

Mr. JAMIESON: The right hon. Gentleman answered Question 7 in his speech yesterday.

PRISON WARDER'S PAY.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any part of the increase of pay of 1s. weekly, awarded to a prison warder in the Scottish prison service under the Prison Officers' Pay Committee Report, 1923, is withdrawn when the officer is transferred from a prison to the lunatic department; and what allowance he receives under the said report in addition to his former prison pay on joining the lunatic department?

Sir G. COLLINS: Under the report referred to warders serving in Scottish prisons on 27th July, 1923, were allowed, in lieu of certain miscellaneous payments, an increase of 1s. a week within the scale of pay; and the special allowance payable to warders serving in the criminal lunatic department was increased to 3s. a week. These allowances are not payable concurrently to the same officer; and consequently a prison warder transferred to the criminal lunatic department would cease to receive the increase of 1s. a week, but would become entitled to the special allowance of 3s. a week.

VALUATION AND RATING.

Mr. JAMIESON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the committee of the Scottish National Development Council and the sub-committee of the Association of Local Lands Valuation Assessors of Scotland, who have been investigating the system of valuation and rating in Scotland, have yet issued reports?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer is in the negative. I understand, however, that it is hoped to complete the reports referred to early next year.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Housing Bill will deal with anything regarding the revision of rents in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the Clauses of the Bill, which I hope to lay on the Table this week.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (ERROL)

Lord SCONE: 34 and 35.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he is aware
that the inhabitants of the district of Errol have been suffering inconvenience for many weeks as the result of the failure of the negotiations concerning the introduction of electricity into the village; and if he is now in a position to make a statement;
(2) if he will consider arranging a meeting, to be presided over by an official of his Department, between the parties to the Errol electricity supply dispute with a view to restoring to the inhabitants of the Errol district the artificial illuminants of which they are at present deprived?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): As my Noble Friend points out, the difficulty arises out of the Company's reluctance to proceed in the absence of agreement as to compensation for a way-leave. I should be ready to adopt his suggestion for a meeting between the parties if they themselves are prepared to fall in with it.

Lord SCONE: Is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to take the initiative himself in this matter?

Mr. PYBUS: I am quite prepared to take the action I have just stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ANALYSIS AND SAMPLING.

Mr. CURRY: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any progress has been made in the direction of putting into operation the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, 1926, with regard to the analysis and sampling of coal and cognate subjects?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The British Standards Institution has done much work with regard to the analysis and sampling of coal, in which my Department, the Fuel Research Board and the Mining Association have taken an active part. Standard specifications for the analysis of coal for export and for inland purposes, and for the sampling of small coal for those purposes have been issued. A standard method for the sampling of large coal and run of mine coal is at present in preparation.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now make a further statement as
to the proposals of the Government to assist the extension of schemes for producing oil from coal?

Mr. E. BROWN: I cannot yet add anything to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 29th November to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward).

Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Member report what progress is being made in this direction?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot say yet.

EXPLOSIONS OF FIREDAMP.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD (for Mr. TINKER): 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of explosions of firedamp causing loss of life in 1932; and on what working shift they have occurred, whether morning shift, afternoon shift, or night shift?

Mr. E. BROWN: The number of explosions of firedamp, since 1st January this year, causing loss of life, is 12. Four of them occurred on the night shift, three on the morning shift and three on the afternoon shift. One occurred between shifts, and the remaining one took place during repair work in a pit which was idle.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say how those figures compare with the figures for previous years?

Mr. BROWN: I have had a table taken out for the last five years. In connection with these 12 explosions, the loss of life this year was 68. In 1927 there were 11 explosions, with 70 deaths; and in 1931, 12 explosions, with 107 deaths. The House will observe that the average number of explosions for those five years was 14, while we have had 12 this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CANADIAN TARIFF BOARD.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a statement by Mr. Bennett to the effect that British traders would have access to
the Canadian tariff board only by application to the Canadian Government through the British Government; and if he will make representations to the Canadian Government with the object of securing for British traders direct access to the Canadian tariff board?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As I have already informed the House, I feel sure that His Majesty's Government in Canada will carry out fully the terms of Articles 13 and 14 of the recent Trade Agreement, and I have no doubt that the position with regard to Article 15 will be the same.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the view of traders in this country, the right of access was the principal advantage they got from Ottawa, and will he be good enough to make the representations I ask for in my question?

Mr. THOMAS: I agree with that interpretation, and I have no reason to doubt that that will be the ultimate decision.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Am I to understand that in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the right of access was granted at Ottawa, and that Mr. Bennett was in error in making his statement?

Mr. THOMAS: I never correct or interpret any Minister's speech. I have merely given my own opinion.

Mr. HANNON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to tell the House precisely what the procedure in this matter will be? Are we to have access to the Canadian tariff board via the Overseas Trade Department in this country or by direct application in Canada?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope to be able to inform the House immediately the representations that are now taking place are finished. On the other hand, I would inform my hon. Friend that the traders in this country are fully aware of the difficulty. I am making and have made representations and I am in negotiation with them. Therefore, I do know their point of view, with which I sympathise.

Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in point of fact, the tariff board in Canada has yet been appointed to deal with these matters?

Mr. THOMAS: The tariff board is not yet fully established, but it is only fair to the Canadian Government to say that they are in the process of forming it now.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement attributed to Mr. Bennett is in accordance with his view of what was agreed upon at Ottawa?

Mr. THOMAS: I have only seen Press reports of the statement. Until I get a full statement I would not like to say.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a definite promise that he will impress upon the Canadian Government the opinion of manufacturers in this country that they should have direct access to the tariff board?

Mr. THOMAS: I not only say that, but I say that that is what the British Government would desire.

Mr. MAXTON: When the right hon. Gentleman agreed to Sections 13, 14 and 15, did he believe that they gave our traders the right of access to the Canadian Board? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he knew when he assented to Sections 13, 14 and 15 what he was assenting to?

Mr. THOMAS: I have no hesitation in saying that I would not think for a moment that my hon. Friend would assent to anything that he did not know about. That is my position.

Mr. MAXTON: Then if the right hon. Gentleman understood it, did he understand that British traders had direct access to the Canadian Tariff Board?

Mr. THOMAS: I have already intimated that in my view that is the only satisfactory way.

BRITISH CEMENT PRODUCTS.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department has yet received any report from the Official Receiver as to the affairs of British Cement Products; and, if so, does he propose to take any action thereon?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): A report has been received and is under consideration.

INVISIBLE IMPORTS.

Mr. MITCHESON: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any estimate of the amounts of what, in contradistinction to invisible exports, may be called invisible imports arising from payments made in the form of licences and royalties on patent rights controlled abroad?

Dr. BURGIN: The information available is insufficient to enable any such estimate to be framed.

PUBLIC CONTRACTS (FOREIGN FIRMS).

Mr. MITCHESON: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has information to show to what extent contracts for the supply of goods to Departments of State, and to municipalities in this country, have been granted to firms under foreign ownership and control registered in Great Britain during the last five years; and whether he will give the names of the Departments and the firms concerned?

Dr. BURGIN: The information asked for is not available.

ARGENTINA.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any discussions with regard to trade matters have yet been initiated with the representatives of the Argentine Republic; and, if so, what progress has been made therewith?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir; discussions have been initiated, but they are still in the preliminary stages.

TEXTILE INDUSTRIES.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he has the assistance of technical experts representing the woollen and worsted sections of the textile industries in the conversations now in progress with the representatives of certain foreign Powers; and, if so, whether he will state by whom, or on whose advice, these experts were appointed?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have arranged for consultation as occa-
sion arises with technical experts in these industries. Their names have been supplied by the Association of Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Industries.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Mr. GIBSON: 31.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what were the net profits of the Export Credits Department in the years 1930, 1931, and to the latest period in 1932?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In so far as it is available and has not already appeared in the annual volume of trading accounts for 1930, the information for which my hon. Friend asks is due to appear in the 1931 volume, the publication of which I cannot anticipate. But in view of the widespread impression that the Department is making large profits, I must point out that its outstanding liabilities are greatly in excess of the surplus of receipts over expenditure.

Mr. GIBSON: Cannot my hon. and gallant Friend give some definite information as to the profits that have been made in those years?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In so far as they are published in the annual volume of trading accounts, they are available to my hon. Friend. I cannot anticipate the publication of the next accounts.

Mr. GIBSON: In view of the fact that the profits that have been made in respect of premiums charged on insurance have been so large year after year, does my hon. and gallant Friend not consider that the Overseas Department might take into consideration the charging of lower premiums to our industries?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: We are taking that into consideration, but we have to remember that the outstanding liabilities are considerable and that we are dealing with the taxpayers' money, and we have to be judicious in charging premiums which will give us some cover.

RUSSIA (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 32.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that the Soviet Government are now placing large orders for shipbuilding, and that the Governments of Germany, Italy, Holland and Denmark are granting credit facilities for periods
of two or three years to the Russian Government; and whether, in order to capture at least part of these orders, which are computed to amount to some £700,000, the Government will now take steps to grant longer credit facilities for this purpose, and also to reduce the insurance rates to an extent more suitable to the risks undertaken?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware that certain foreign Governments have assisted their shipbuilders to secure orders from the Soviet Government by giving long credits, but I have no information as to the particular orders to which the hon. Member refers and am making inquiries. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind him that facilities under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme are not at present available for the export of ocean-going ships to any country. The advisory committee are not in any case at present prepared to extend the period of credit.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. and gal-land Gentleman says that we cannot get this extended credit for ships. Is there anything to hinder the giving of extended credits for heavy engineering?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That appears to be a separate question. I have already intimated that the attitude of the Advisory Committee is not favourable to the extension of credits.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that the Soviet Government carries out its present obligations before any further facilities are granted?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that India, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have made trade agreements this year with Russia?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member is misinformed.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (PEANUT OIL, CANADA).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the reasons why crude peanut oil has been withdrawn from Schedule F of the Anglo-Canadian Agreement concluded at Ottawa; and whether this has been done with the consent of the Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It has been represented to me on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Canada that the inclusion of this item in the schedule of preferences granted to the Colonial Empire by Canada had been made under accidental circumstances and had been found on later examination to cause them embarrassment. In the circumstances I felt that I had no option hot to agree to its withdrawal.

Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the publication of the Canadian Agreement, including that product, contracts were made and engagements entered into which are likely to result in considerable losses to those entering into them; and will he look into the matter again?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That, I think, only partly states the case, and I may state it plainly. The position was this, that so far as Great Britain was concerned, a proposal was made by the President of the Board of Trade that this item should be included in the United Kingdom agreement. That proposal was declined by Canada. Canada, however, agreed that it might go into the colonial Preferences. The result was that the Ottawa Agreement, as signed, bound the Canadian Government to give a preference to peanut oil from the Colonial Empire but not if it came from the United Kingdom. Therefore, even if I had stood by the terms of the agreement, I should not have been conferring any right on the United Kingdom manufacturer.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. MANDER: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of schemes for a drawback of duty on goods exported which have been approved by or are under the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and the particular industries affected?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Here-Belisha): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. A. Ramsay) on the 1st December, since when two further applications have been received by the committee. It is not the
practice to disclose information as to individual applications unless and until they are advertised by the committee.

Mr. HARTLAND (for Colonel GOODMAN): 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps have been taken, in consultation with Dominion Governments, to give effect to the recommendation of the Ottawa Conference that it was desirable to secure a greater degree of uniformity of definition of Empire content?

Mr. THOMAS: The recommendation of the Ottawa Conference was that each of the Governments of the Commonwealth should investigate the standard of Empire content which should be required by them, and that a greater degree of uniformity was desirable, though it must rest with each Government to decide what standard it would require. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informed the House on the 29th November, the matter is under active consideration by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. HANNON: Can my right hon. Friend now say when he expects a decision to be arrived at on this matter by the Dominions, and is he aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told the House the other day that we were to have a statement in a very short time?

Mr. THOMAS: We hope to make an early statement.

Mr. HARTLAND (for Colonel GOODMAN): 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken any action to revise the percentage of content in the regulations issued by his Department in pursuance of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, entitling goods to be deemed to have been manufactured in the British Empire; and, if not, whether it is proposed to amend such regulations?

Dr. BURGIN: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend on this subject to the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. A. Ramsay) on the 29th November.

W. Mr. HOLDSWORTH (for Mr. HEPWORTH): asked the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether the existence of a cartel agreement, limiting export activities to different countries, is taken into consideration by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in deciding on the appropriateness of applying any import duty to the protection of such goods whose export is limited as stated?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have no doubt that the committee take into account all considerations which are relevant in the light of the instructions given to them in Section 3 of the Import Duties Act.

MEAT IMPORTS (ARGENTINE AND URUGUAY).

Mr. LUNN (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the meat which is imported from the Argentine and Uruguay to this country is purchased at the ranches, and what proportion is purchased at Liniers; and the price at each point on the latest date for which figures are available?

Dr. BURGIN: I understand that about 95 per cent, of the chilling cattle required for export are purchased at the ranches, and about 5 per cent. at the Liniers market. As regards prices, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS IMPORTS).

Miss RATHBONE: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the committee appointed by the League to watch the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay reported that, as neither of the disputants itself was a producer of arms, munitions, or implements of war, any increase in their belligerent strength must depend on supplies from abroad; and whether, in view of this, he will refuse to issue licences for the export of these commodities to the countries named during the duration of the dispute?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware of the report to which the hon. Member refers. The suggestion made in the second part of the question is under consideration. The hon. Member will appreciate that unilateral action in this matter would not be effective.

Miss RATHBONE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, and to what amount and value, arms, munitions, and implements of war have been licensed for export from this country to Bolivia or Paraguay during the past 12 months?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the amount of material covered by licences for export to Bolivia and Paraguay issued since 1st December, 1931. It is not the practice to make public information as to the value of material covered by export licences.

Miss RATH BONE: Will the Minister say whether the information given will

STATEMENT showing Material covered by Export Licences issued for Bolivia and Paraguay since 1st December, 1931.


Month.
Bolivia.
Paraguay.


1931.




December
…
Nil.
Nil.


1932.




January
…
Nil.
50 37 m.m. ammunition belts.


February
…
Nil.
Nil.


March
…
6,650 rounds 65 m.m. H.E. ammunition.
Nil.




700 rounds 65 m.m. practice ammunition.





7,715 percussion primers.





6,700 fuses.



April
…
8 7.65 m.m. machine guns with spares.
Nil.


May
…
Nil
4,000,000 7.65 m.m. rifle cartridges.





1,000,000 .303 inch rifle cartridges.





200,000 chargers for 7.65 m.m. rifle cartridges.


June
…
Nil.
Nil.


July
…
Nil.
Nil.


August
…
100,000 rounds 7.65 m.m. service ammunition.
Nil.


September
…
90 7.65 m.m. machine guns with tripods.
200,000 chargers for 7 m.m. rifle cartridges.




154 7.65 m.m machine rifles.





1 machine gun tripod.





2,000,000 rounds 7.65 m.m. service ammunition.



October
…
6 6-ton tanks.
Nil.




6,000 rounds 47 m.m. H.E. ammunition.



November
…
1 7.65 m.m. machine gun with tripod.
Nil.




8,200 rounds 105 m.m. howitzer ammunition.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORRIS AND JONES v. HARMAN.

Mr. LOGAN: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the recent action before the High Court of Morris and Jones against Mr. C. Harman; and, if so, whether he proposes to lay the evidence before the Law Officers of the Crown?

enable us to see whether there has been an increase in the exports during the period of the dispute?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If the hon. Lady studies the report, I think she will find the information required.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: As neither of these countries has any sea coast, is it possible to know how British armaments have been got into those territories?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper, I will answer it.

Following is the statement:

Dr. BURGIN: The action to which the hon. Member refers is one to which the Board of Trade were not parties and with which they are not concerned. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

Mr. LOGAN: Do I understand from that answer that there is no intention that the Law Officers shall interest themselves in this case, which is so important to many shareholders who are very poor people?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to a civil case, in the High Court of Justice, which was between private individuals and a company, and did not relate to a Government Department.

Mr. LOGAN: I ask in the latter part of the question what action, if any, the Board of Trade or the Government will take in order to get the Law Officers to operate?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (UNIFORM).

Brigadier-General NATION: 28 and 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether the recently approved Army uniform is intended to replace the existing field-service uniform, or whether it is supplemental thereto; and what the financial aspect of the change is in respect to the annual Army Estimates;
(2) whether the recently approved headdress for the Army is in substitution for or in addition to the existing field-service head-dress; and, in the latter case, will he state on what occasions the new headdress is to be worn?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No alterations in Army uniform have as yet been approved by the Army Council nor recommended by the Committee which has been inquiring into this subject. The Committee has, however, reached certain provisional conclusions which are now under trial. There is, therefore, no question at present of Army Estimates being affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 30.
asked the hon. Member for Ipswich as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he is aware that the tabasco pepper sauce served in the dining rooms is of United States of America origin; and whether he will take steps to obtain future supplies of such hot sauce from within the British Empire?

Sir JOHN GANZONI: Only eight 1s. 9d. bottles of tabasco sauce, each holding about 2 oz., have been ordered for the dining rooms of the House of Commons during the past year, while nearly 20 kinds of other sauces and pickles, all Home, or Empire products, are supplied to Members. No more tabasco sauce will be purchased after the present supply is exhausted.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Does the hon. Baronet consider that this is the only type of sauce that we are now getting from across the Atlantic, and could it not be obtained from Yorkshire?

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Baronet take care that the next two bottles of tabasco sauce are British products?

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is it not a fact that the consumption of tabasco sauce is a direct incentive to the consumption of British oysters?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).

Mr. MANDER: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the regulation governing the disposal of the interest on the Boxer Indemnity Funds remitted by the British Government under which grants may be provided for the authors of text-books of middle and primary schools grade; and whether he will make representations to the Chinese Government that these grants should be devoted only to such works as are free from anti-foreign propaganda?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the provision of the grants to which he refers lies with the Board of Trustees. I see no reason to anticipate that the board, one-third of whose members are British subjects, will sanction expenditure from the indemnity funds upon grants to the authors of works devoted to anti-foreign propaganda. There is, therefore, no call to make representations to the Chinese Government previous to an event which I see no reason to anticipate.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT (AIRCRAFT).

Mr. MANDER: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government's disarmament proposals
now include support for a reduction of the unladen weight of military aircraft to the figure of 1,600 kilos, as proposed by a group of eight Powers or, alternatively, to that of 650 kilos, as proposed by Italy?

Mr. EDEN: As stated by my right hon. Friend in his statement at Geneva on the 17th November His Majesty's Government have included in their proposals, as a practical and immediate measure of disarmament, the limitation of the unladen weight of military aircraft to the lowest figure upon which general agreement can be obtained.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the Government do riot rule out figures of this kind?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member must understand what the statement contains —" the lowest figure that can be obtained." That must be a matter for negotiation.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATIONS AND WAR DEBTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as no provision has been made in the Budget for the payment of War Loan interest to America, he will say out of what fund the Government proposes to make such payment?

Mr. MABANE: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on the payment of the instalment of the American debt due on 15th December; and in what manner payment will be made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend to await the statement which I expect to make in the course of the Debate tomorrow.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any arrangements have been made in his recent conversations in Paris to meet the debt payment due to this country next March?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position in regard to this question is that stated in the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on the 6th December, and in
the reply which I am giving to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to-day. No arrangements which would modify this position were made during my recent visit to Paris.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the result of the right hon. Gentleman's visit to Paris been that we are going to pay America and France is going to pay America, but France is not going to pay us?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will await the statement which I am going to make to-morrow.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CHURCHILL:

50. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will in no circumstances consent to the preferential discrimination of France and Italy in favour of their War Debt payments to the United States of America as against their payments of similar debts due to Great Britain; and whether he will demand equality and simultaneity of treatment for Great Britain from these two countries in order to prevent all payments by all countries to the United States of America on 15th December being made at the sole expense of Great Britain?

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I, in putting this question express regret that the Prime Minister, to whom it was originally addressed, is not in his place to answer it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my right hon. Friend is not aware that the Prime Minister is unwell and is confined to the house.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is why I regret it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the letter which I addressed to the French Minister of Finance at Lausanne on 8th July, 1932 (which was published in Command Paper 4129), it was stated that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would have been very glad if it had been possible for them to cancel the War Debt of France as part of an all-round cancellation of War Debts and Reparations, but that in the actual circumstances they could not enter into any definite commit
meats modifying the existing War Debt Funding Agreement; they agreed, however, that the annuities due under that Agreement should be suspended until the coming into force of the Lausanne Agreement or until it has been decided not to ratify that Agreement. His Majesty's Government earnestly trust that the examination of the whole question of War Debts in their relation to world recovery, which the United States Government have agreed to, will result in a settlement which will enable the Lausanne Agreements to be ratified. In the meantime His Majesty's Government consider that it is of the utmost importance that no decision should be taken at the present time to the effect that the Lausanne Agreement cannot be ratified. Consequently, assuming that this view is concurred in by the other Governments concerned, the suspension of Reparations and War Debts will remain in force, but all the rights of His Majesty's Government under the existing Agreements will, as stated in my letter of 8th July, 1932, be integrally reserved.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we then to understand that His Majesty's Government are unable to give the assurance asked for in my question and that all payments to the United States on 15th December will be made at the expense of this country?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to reply to the. right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), will he tell me without trenching on the Debate of to-morrow whether it is not the fact that France has agreed, quite irrespective of any payment from Germany, to pay this country £11,000,000 per month or;£12,000,000 per year, in respect of the agreement which was entered into?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The agreement with France provides that the payments are due to us, quite irrespective of any payments received by France from Germany. If I may answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I wish for a moment to refer to the terms of that question again. I did not understand from his question that the discrimination to which he refers was confined to one payment. If, therefore, the question is of a general character—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer, in that case is that His Majesty's Government will not consent to any such discrimination, which, indeed, has not been asked for, but, if it applies only to the payment of 15th December, then that payment is covered by the terms of the Lausanne Agreement which requires that the payment shall be kept in suspense until a final settlement is arrived at.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether American willingness to consider war debts in their relation to world recovery is compatible with the settlement at Lausanne; and is that not likely, in some circumstances, to widen the scope of the reference at Lausanne?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see anything incompatible between American willingness to consider a revision of war debts with a view to world recovery, and the arrangement that was made at Lausanne, which in my opinion was an essential preliminary to settlement.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, while this matter is under discussion, the advisability of postponing the collection of debt from the Irish Free State?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that it is the intention to debar us from obtaining any separate settlement with the United States on this question? Are we now confined to act-tins on a united front versus the United States, or may we still act independently?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We are not bound to a united front. We are entitled to, and intend, if we are able so to do, to make a separate settlement with the United States.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS (for Mr. CLARRY): 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the attitude of the United States of America on debt repayments and our adverse trade balance with that country, he will consider a substantial increase of import duties on some goods and total prohibition of certain other goods coming into this country?

Dr. BURGIN: I cannot at present add anything to what was said in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the British Note to the United States Government of the 1st December.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN BANKS (ADVANCES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of money advanced to Austrian banks within the last three years for which the Treasury take responsibility?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend appears to be under some misapprehension. The British Treasury has taken no responsibility for any money advanced to Austrian Banks.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

BEER DUTY.

Major MILLS: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider reducing the tax on beer in return for an undertaking by the representatives of the brewery trade to use a larger amount of home-grown barley in the interests of British agriculture?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: While I am naturally desirous of affording encouragement to British agriculture, I am afraid that in reviewing the Beer Duty I must be guided primarily by considerations of Revenue.

Major MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how vitally important it is to farmers with light land that their barley should once more become a paying crop; and does he not think that, If they are not prosperous, he will not get Income Tax from them for the Exchequer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the first part of the question, that has already been represented to me. In regard to the second part, I may be able to get Income Tax from them, but the question is whether it will be sufficient Income Tax.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his answer excludes consideration of this question at the appropriate time before the Budget is introduced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

TOBACCO DUTY.

Mr. RUTHERFORD CHALMERS: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the latest convenient year what percentage of the total revenue raised by taxation was contributed by taxation of tobacco?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Tobacco contributed 8.65 per cent. of the total tax revenue raised in the year ended 31st March, 1932.

SURTAX (FOREIGN FIRMS).

Mr. MITCHESON: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider taking steps to ensure that foreign firms with factories in Great Britain have to contribute towards Surtax out of profits made in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Profits of foreign concerns arising from trading in the United Kingdom are liable to Income Tax at the standard rate and may in certain circumstances be subject to Surtax in the hands of individuals. As at present advised, I am not prepared to discriminate in the matter of Surtax against foreigners who set up factories in this country.

ESTATE DUTIES (AGRICULTURAL LAND).

Mr. NALL-CAIN: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield from Estate Duties on agricultural land during the financial year ended 31st March, 1932?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the 'answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) on 12th May last, which furnished estimates for the three years ended 31st March, 1932. I am sending him a copy of that answer.

CONVERSION LOAN (BROKERAGE).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the £4,000,000 paid by the Government as brokerage for the conversion loan was paid to the clerks and those whose direct services did so much to secure the success of this conversion scheme?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I may remind my hon. Friend that the commission was payable to all bankers, other than the Bank of England, stockbrokers and solicitors in respect of applications for the
continuance of holdings of War Loan which bore their stamp. The Government have no knowledge how the commission was used by the recipients, or what payments were made by them to their staffs for services in connection with the conversion operation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would not my right hon. Friend admit that the staff did a very considerable proportion of the work, and were really helpful to him on that occasion?

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in respect of the commission paid, whether any of those concerned refunded the money, on the ground that they had not done service for it?

FOREIGN LOANS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the national indebtedness includes liability for any amounts due from foreign States which have defaulted on loans made to them at any time; whether the objects of such loans were for ordinary development or for military purposes; and whether he will state the several amounts and the date of default in each case?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GRENFELL: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give us the main features of his reply?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will give the hon. Member the outstanding facts, but I must ask him to await the full reply. Our financial indebtedness includes £ 1,068,000,000 advanced to Russia, which is in default, and £1,510,000 owing by Persia, which is also in default. The only foreign loan guaranteed by His Majesty's Government in respect of which we have to meet the payments is the Greek 2½ per cent. Loan of 1898.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has the hon. Member referred to all the defaults which he is going to give in detail in his answer?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, but I have given them very summarily, and I will ask the hon. Member to await the full statement.

Following is the reply

The national indebtedness includes an amount of £ 1,068,000,000 which was borrowed by the Treasury and was advanced to Russia during the War mainly for military purposes. The Russian Government defaulted on the loans thus made to them in 1918 and the figure given includes interest unpaid since that date. The Government of Persia are also in default on loans made by His Majesty's Government to that country during and after the War, to assist them in maintaining internal law and order. The amount of this indebtedness was reduced by virtue of agreement concluded with the Persian Prime Minister in 1926 to £ 1,510,000 but no payments in respect of it have been made.

The only foreign loan guaranteed by His Majesty's Government on account of which payments are now being made by His Majesty's Government under their guarantee owing to the default of the borrowing Government is the Greek 2½ per cent. Loan of 1898. The bulk of the Loan was used by the Greeks to pay a War Indemnity to Turkey. The amounts paid under their guarantee by His Majesty's Government have been as follow:—

£


In respect of Interest and Sinking Fund clue 1st April 1932
54,000


In respect of Interest and Sinking Fund due 1st October, 1932
72,700

Equivalent amounts have been paid by the French Government who were also Guarantors of the Loan.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNCLAIMED BANK BALANCES.

Mr. PARKINSON: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of money lying in the Bank of England known as unclaimed bank balances on the 31st March, 1932?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Bank of England in relation to its private customers is in the same position as any other bank, and I have no information respecting the accounts of those customers.

Mr. THORNE: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it is time now that these unclaimed balances held by the Bank were handed over to the State?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A Select Committee of this House in 1919 did review this question and came to the conclusion that these balances were of no great concern.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERAL TRAFFIC (RAILWAY SIDINGS AND WAGONS).

Sir M. WOOD (for Mr. CURRY): 33.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the progress made to date in putting into force the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Mineral Transport contained in their report of October, 1929, with regard to the pooling of wagons, the size of wagons, and the adaptation of terminals?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): As the reply is somewhat long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, arrangements for giving effect to the recommendation of the Standing Committee that Government financial assistance should be given for the conversion of colliery and other sidings so as to enable them to accommodate 20-ton wagons were brought into force in 1930 under the provisions of the Development Act. Owing to the state of industry, few undertakings were able to take advantage of these arrangements. There has, however, partly as a result of assistance given under the Act, been a considerable increase in these facilities at the ports. The committee have been asked to proceed on the lines suggested in their report with the further consideration of such questions as the standardisation and pooling of mineral wagons. The committee have recently brought to my notice a recommendation that it would be desirable that for the time being further mineral wagons of a capacity below 20 tons should not be constructed without special permission. This recommendation is under consideration, in consultation with the railway companies.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. BUCHANAN): 36.
asked the Minister of
Labour if he will circularise public assistance committees with a view to securing for recipients of transitional payment the greatest possible relaxation of the rules governing benefit during the Christmas and New Year holidays?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1st December to a question put to me on this subject by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

Mr. MAXTON: Is there nothing to add to that reply?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is a very complete answer.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the Minister seen no reason to change his mind in the interval?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, I have not done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA ("IZVESTIA" ARTICLE).

Sir W. DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to the result of his recent interview with the Soviet Ambassador?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. On the 5th December, during my right hon. Friend's absence at Geneva, the Soviet Ambassador called on the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and made an oral communication to the effect that, while the Soviet Government only took responsibility for official communications in the "Izvestia," they desired to state that, with regard to this particular incident, they did not entertain, and had not at any time entertained, the suspicions of my right hon. Friend and of the Foreign Office which were expressed therein. On the contrary, they dissociated themselves from such statements. Monsieur Maisky repeated this declaration to Sir Robert Vansittart on the 9th December, and added that he himself had communicated with the editor of the "Izvestia," who had now replied that he had been misled by one of his correspondents; that he recognised that the statements in question were inaccurate; and that he wished to express his regret for having published
them. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government regard the matter as closed.

Sir W. DAVISON: In closing the matter, will some representations be made to the effect that His Majesty's Government are aware that the "Izvestia" is not permitted to publish anything in its columns which is not approved by the Russian Soviet Government?

Mr. EDEN: I think that, when the matter is closed, it had better remain closed.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Was it worth while raising all this stir for such a result?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business he exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 31.

Division No. 24.]
AYES.
[3.30 p.m.


Agnow, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Ker, J. Campbell


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Baldwin, Bt. Hon. Stanley
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Knight, Holford


Balniel, Lord
Elmley, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leckie, J. A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Erskins, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lees-Jones, John


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Levy, Thomas


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Liddall, Walter S.


Bernays, Robert
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Falle Sir Bertram G.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Bird. Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Fermoy, Lord
Mabane, William


Borodale, Viscount
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Boulton, W. W.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fraser, Captain Ian
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McLean, Major Alan


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Broadbent, Colonel John
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maitland, Adam


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Mannigham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Glossop, C. W. H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Burnett, John George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goff, Sir Park
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Castlereagh, Viscount
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Granville, Edgar
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Milne, Charles


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, Harold p.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Christle, James Archibald
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moss, Captain H. J.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hartland, George A.
Mulrhead, Major A. J.


Colville, Lieut. Colonel J.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Munro, Patrick


Conant, R. J. E.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Cook, Thomas A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cooke, Douglas
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cooper, A. Duff
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)


Copeland, Ida
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
North, Captain Edward T.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nunn, William


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hornby, Frank
Patrick, Colin M.


Cross, R. H.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peat, Charles U.


Crossley, A. C.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Curry, A. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Davison, Sir William Henry
Hurd, Sir Percy
Pike, Cecil F.


Donner, P. W.
Iveagh, Countess of
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Pybus, Percy John


Duggan, Hubert John
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Dunglass, Lord
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsden, E.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Rea, Walter Russell
Slater, John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine,C.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lt-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Robinson, John Roland
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rosbotham, S. T.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rothschild, James A. de
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Weymouth, Viscount


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stevenson, James
White, Henry Graham


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Stones, James
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Storey, Samuel
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Salt, Edward W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Womersley, Walter James


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Scone, Lord
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'oaks)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thorp, Linton Theodore



Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Sinclair, Ma). Rt. Hn.Sir A. (C'thness)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir




George Penny.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Granted, David Rut (Glamorgan)
Lunn. William


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thome, William James


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932).

Estimate presented, of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1933 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 4.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:

That, after a, Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING ORDERSCOMMITTEE) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had selected the following Ten Members to be the Panel to serve on Standing Orders Committees under Standing Order 98: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, the Earl of Dalkeith, Sir Francis Fremantle, Major Leighton, Mr. Mander, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Tinker, Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan, and Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Eleven Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir Adrian Baillie, Sir Samuel Chapman, the Earl of Dalkeith, Sir Patrick Ford, Mr. Leonard, Lieut.-Colonel MacAndrew, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Albert Russell, and Mr. Stuart.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel appointed to serve on the Committees on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111: Mr. Charles Brown, Captain Crawford Browne, Mr. Chotzner, Mr. Thomas Cook, Mr. Han-bury, Mr. Logan, Mr. Smith-Carington, and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th December], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

3.39 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which makes no provision for the reduction of rents of working-class houses, fails to restore control to houses already decontrolled, and proposes to decontrol certain classes of houses at present under control.
I listened to every speech that was delivered in the Debate yesterday, and there was one remark which fell from the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) with which I am in, whole-hearted agreement. He stated that this problem of the amount and the payment of rent by the working classes was one of greater importance than many of the problems to which we paid more attention. I was surprised in some ways yesterday to find that the official Opposition are not to divide against this Bill. I listened to their spokesmen to see why they are supporting it, at least on Second Reading, while reserving to themselves the right of moving Amendments 'on Committee stage. I know that the justification for that attitude is that the Bill controls working-class houses of Class "C," and that therefore it may be said to contain that much good and that it should be supported. Let me examine that argument. The Bill seeks to deal with four classes of houses and their tenants or occupiers. It deals first with Class "A" houses, occupied by those who may be described as the more comfortable section of the population; with Class "B" houses, for what the Minister described as the higher paid artisans and the lower middle class; with Class "C" houses, for working-class people and the poorer paid artisans; and, finally, it deals with the sub-tenants of those who are tenants direct from the landlord.
As regards three of those classes this Bill, from the Labour or working-class point of view, is reactionary. If one takes the Bill as a whole and does not examine it from the Conservative point of view, but purely from the view of the working-class or Labour movement, it is a reactionary Bill, and how Members who in the past have voted against Bills which have contained elements of good in them can allow to pass a Measure which seeks to attack great masses of the people, and which fails to remedy other working-class grievances, I fail to understand. I know that the Committee which was set up to deal with this problem was appointed by the Labour Government and I think I am not wrong in saying that the majority of its members were members of the Labour party. That Committee brought in a report from which one Member dissented, namely, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). Here may I say that in the case of all the rent committees on which he has served, and there are at least two that I know of, the hon. Member for Hamilton has always brought in a report of which he must now be justly proud. In his minority report in this instance he takes the view that we on these benches take to-day, namely, that the Committee failed to do its work properly when it did not recommend rent reductions, when it did not recommend that all houses now out of control should be brought back into control, and when it did not recommend that houses which A is proposed to pass out of control should remain under control.
Therefore, we take the view that, though it may be argued that the Bill does some form of good, its principles ought to be opposed. The Minister of Health left us in no doubt that the principles of the Bill cannot be amended. He said that, with one exception, he was accepting the recommendations of the Committee, which, it must he remembered, had a majority of Labour members, including a woman, now dead, who was the chief woman adviser of the Labour party. The Committee turned down rent reductions, and the bringing back under control of houses which had been decontrolled, and therefore the decision of the Minister to accept their recommendations means, in effect, that no matter what Amendment is moved from this side of the House the Bill will
not be substantially altered in its main functions and principles. To my mind, therefore, the principles of the Bill must be challenged. It is no answer to say that it contains a good point or two. That could be said of every Bill. No one in his senses would deny that the Act dealing with transitional payments was in some respects an improvement, but we voted against it. No one can deny that the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, introduced by the Conservatives, brought some benefits to large classes of the community, but we voted against it.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Shame!

Mr. BUCHANAN: It was right to do so. It is unfair to lecture a new Member—I dislike being lectured myself—but when the hon. Member knows more about Parliamentary procedure he will understand the point. The Conservatives voted against the Wheatley scheme, although they admitted that it contained valuable points. One has to understand the purpose to be served in rejecting a Bill such as this. If it were rejected on a reasoned Amendment it would be an intimation to the Government from the House of Commons that in their view it did not meet the needs of the nation. If we are to serve the interests of the nation the Bill must be defeated, and the Government given instructions to bring in a new one. There was a classic example of such action by the House of Commons during my experience of Parliamentary life. A Conservative Government brought in a Measure concerning ex-soldiers and Civil Service appointments. It went a certain distance, but the Rouse defeated it, many Conservatives being among those who voted against it, That was a direct instruction to the Government that the Measure was regarded as mean and as not going far enough, and the Government had to introduce a new one.

Sir J. HASLAM: Does the hon. Member mean to say that half a loaf is not better than no bread?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am saying that we in the Opposition, in the Labour party, have to make up our minds on this point: Does one good thing in the Bill outweigh every other wrong? If we who are opposing the Bill and have put down
a reasoned Amendment were to win, it would be a direct intimation to the Government that the Bill is regarded as a reactionary one in the main, and wrong in its draftsmanship and make up. Every Parliamentarian knows that it is for the Opposition to examine a Bill and, even if it contains one item that may be good, to ask the House to reject it on reasoned grounds. If we support these proposals, we vote not merely for the Bill, but for the Committee's report upon 'which the Bill has been drafted. That report stands for rents as they are now paid, for decontrol, and also for leaving out of control houses that should be brought back into control. Therefore, those who vote for this Measure will be voting for things which the House of Commons would do well to reject.
I propose to examine this Bill in closer detail than has yet been done. I will deal first with the question of rents. I quite understand the views of English Members on this question of housing. Those views have often been different in the case of Scottish and English Members of Parliament, and the views of the working people in the two countries on this problem have also been very different. The dwelling-house in Scotland is the tenement type and the English type is entirely different. In 1922, when I was a bay, a raw callow youth standing on St. Enoch's Station, knowing nothing about the institution at Westminster to which I was to come, the clamant demand of our people was for rents to be rigidly reduced and for control to be rigidly exercised. While English Members may be able to find excuses for this Measure, I can see no reason why Scottish Members should not reject it. If there is one demand—it is a right demand in regard to Scottish housing—it is that this cruel exploiting of the working people should cease. Housing seems to be the easiest thing upon which they can be exploited, and I know that this question is uppermost in the minds of the people of Scotland.
I now propose to examine the question of rent reduction. I heard the case against rent reduction stated yesterday by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The increase allowed is 40 per cent., or, as the Minister of Health put it, 40 per cent. plus 10 per cent. in this country. In Scotland
it is 47½ per cent. plus 10 per cent. Forty per cent. was the percentage fixed, and of that 25 per cent. was given for repairs and 15 per cent. was allowed to the landlord because of the change in circumstances. It was stated yesterday that things are different from the time when the committee appointed by the Labour party signed their report. It almost makes me despair of politics as an honest thing when people make that statement. I would like to ask: If the Labour Government 18 months ago had brought in a Bill based upon the committee's report, would they still have kept rents at the same level, and would they have brought in the same proposals as those which are contained in the present Bill? Is the only thing which the Labour Members have against this proposal, a difference of 18 months 7 If that is their only objection, it is an argument for voting in favour of the Bill. It may be argued that things have got worse during that 18 months, but any reasonable man may argue that things, in some respects, have got better during that period. Once you adopt the 18 months' argument, and leave the principles alone, you are in a cul-de-sacthat leads to nowhere. It may be argued that 18 months ago there was a case against the committee's report, because there was not a sufficient number of houses being built. It may be argued that during that 18 months more houses were built owing, to some extent, to the Labour party's drive in housing, and in that way you come to the argument as to whether 18 months was a right or a wrong period. I dismiss that argument as having no fundamental connection with this Bill.
I will now deal with the increase in rent, and I will examine, first, the 25 per cent. which was given to the landlord because of the increase in the cost of repairs. The repairs were always to be done by the landlord, and the 25 per cent. was given to him because of the extra cost. Those repairs have now ceased to be done. I know it is true that the onus is placed upon the landlord to do certain statutory repairs which can be enforced by the local authorities. In the old days, as was well said last night by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), in order to get their property let landlords had to do the repairs them-
selves, but that is not the case to-day. Necessary repairs which may be enforced by the local authorities are not done by the landlord in a great number of cases, but they are done by the tenants. The tenant, in many cases, is afraid to complain because he thinks it might do himself and his tenancy some harm. Anyone who reads the evidence will find that men like builders, painters, joiners, and those skilled in house construction actually do their own repairs in nine cases out of ten, although it is work which is rightly chargeable to the landlord. I know that is the case to-day in Scotland.
English Members know that in Scotland before the War there was a great boon in "spec building, to use a Scottish phrase. At that time you could get a house, and the landlord would paint it for you with ordinary paint, and varnish the doors, and put it into first-class condition. To-day the tenants have to do all that themselves, and, in spite of that fact, the landlord is not only allowed 15 per cent. increase on the rent, but he is also allowed an increase of 25 per cent. for repairs which he never carries out. The tenement problem is represented in Glasgow where people are herded together, and there the landlord does not carry out more than the barest necessities in the way of repairs. The tenant may go to the sanitary authority and represent that his house is in a bad state and needs painting. What happens? The official of the sanitary authority says, "I will have a coat of paint put upon it," but the standard which the courts of Scotland enforce is simply a coat of lime and water, and all that the landlord is called upon to do for human beings in Scotland is to put their habitations into the same state as a farmer puts his barn for cattle.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows quite well that that is all the law courts have enforced in regard to houses, and yet the landlords are given 25 per cent. increase of rent specifically for repairs which are either never carried out, or done in a meaner fashion than was ever the case before the war. That concession was given round about 1920 because at that time wages were high. That was true in 1920. Since then, wages have fallen considerably in the building trade. Wages have come toppling down each year regularly, and to-day, whatever force there might have been in the argu-
meat, the increase of wages has now rapidly diminished. There is another aspect. In the old days, landlords of property always carried as part of their business a percentage of unlet property. Every business man allows so much for loss, so much that he wipes out each year, and in the old days, before the war, each landlord carried so much property that was unlet. He had to meet the charges of the property by the rents on other property. But now every house is occupied, even among the poorest people, and to-day that loss, which was formerly chargeable to them, is turned into a gain. To-day the conditions which landlords had to face before the war are wiped out, and as a consequence, so far from his needing the increase, he is placed in a much more favourable position than ever he was before the war.
I come to another aspect. Has the property gained in value? There is a case for property built since the war, because there, it can be argued, wages and interest charges are higher. But is anyone going seriously to argue in this House that property is a commodity different from almost every other commodity with one exception—whisky? Every other commodity—clothes, food, anything you like, if you use it—and even whisky if you use it—goes down in value. It is said that people have put their money in this property. It is the one argument which the Tories have. After all, even when poor people put money into property, they are only entitled, even under the capitalist system, to get a return as long as they are rendering value for it, and even they put so much by for depreciation, recognising that there is a time when they have got all out of it which they are legitimately entitled to get out of it. Yet here are properties 40 to 70 years old. They have got from it all that they are legitimately entitled to get from it, and now they seek to get more than that to which they are legitimately entitled. "But," say my Friends of the Opposition and on both sides, more or less, "Why differentiate between house property and other commodities? You allow free-play of the market in other commodities." That is not quite true. The State, when it comes to a decision that a certain commodity is vital in the interest and for the well-being of the people, takes a different
view from that. Take, for instance, any human labour. It is quite true that in the market for human labour there is free-play, as far as men can make free-play to sell their labour as high as they can, while the employer purchases it as low as he can. But here again we intervene and say that that cannot be done in certain respects. We say about the civil servant that he cannot be allowed to take the ordinary strike action, that his labour is in a different category from the labour of other workmen. We say to the soldier and the naval man that their labour is in a different category. In regard to house property, the need for shelter, the Government ought to take the same line, that shelter is such a human consideration, such a vital thing to a community, that the ordinary free-play of ups and downs cannot be allowed as in other commodities.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Would that not include food and clothing?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Everyone knows that it takes a long time to plan a house, buy the ground and build the house. No one can say that there is any real comparison with food. But even there the Government have recognised the principle in certain conditions. They appointed a committee yesterday, true without powers, but nevertheless recognising the principle that even in food you cannot allow the free-play of the market to go on unchecked and uncontrolled. Therefore, even in that respect my hon. Friend who interjected must admit the point. I say that to-day wages have fallen. Take the War Loan. The interest on it has been reduced. The great bulk of War Loan investors have accepted the position, though many of them could have exploited the market to get higher interest; but they accepted the position, and took the lower interest. To-day, on a vital necessity equally as great as the War Loan for financing your country, while we ought to be asking the owners of property to accept the same sacrifice that we have asked from every other section of the community, this section is to be exempted from it.
There is a further aspect which must enter into view. There is the question of working class ability to pay. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), when speaking yesterday, was interrupted by an hon. Member. I do not
see him here. I intended to deal with his interruption about evictions. What is the actual position? Wages have come down. The hon. Member for Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey), speaking yesterday, said that the average wage of a miner in his district was less than £2 a week. A recent statistical publication showed that the average wage of a miner in Britain, including everything, was £2 6s. It is less to-day. It will be less, I am sorry to say, because of the industrial weakness of the men, who are in a terrible plight. The average wage of shipbuilding workmen ranges from £2 3s. But those are the wages of the men who are working, that is, as long as they work 52 weeks in a year. What about the wages of the men who are working six months and are idle six months? What about the wages of the man who is 12 months out of work? The real fact is that those who are occupying dwelling-houses to-day cannot pay the rents.
The Prime Minister ought to have regard to his word to poor people. It may be that he does not break it consciously, but he does not give it the full measure of thought that he gives to his international pledges. Standing at that Box, when pressed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), he said that he was going into this question of rents; he thought that there was a case. Here you have wages down and unemployment benefit cut by 10 per cent. When we are told about the sanctity of contracts, take the Army reservists, for instance. A man entered into a contract under which he was to get a certain reserve pay, a solemn contract, a contract which he cannot break but which the Government break by reducing it 25 per cent. Then take the smashing of insurance contracts, a 10 per cent. reduction. Yet we are told to-day, when everybody is suffering the most awful reductions, that those who own houses, particularly those occupied by poor people, are not to suffer a reduction like other people. There can be no case made out for it.
Let me examine the facts. Why is Class "C" property to some extent exempt? There used to be an old colleague of mine in this House who was Minister of Health, John Wheatley, who said that the Socialist could always get anything Socialised that did not pay;
that if you could not make money out of it, the community would get it. He used as an illustration cemeteries. It is not for me to discuss another Bill which is to come before the House this week, but it is in order to make reference to it in so far as I can connect it with this Measure. That Bill is to deal with what is called working-class or slum property. Its purpose, even for the defence of the tenant, is to some extent illusory. The Government, I understand, are going on with an intensification of the building of slum or working-class houses. They are going to withdraw the Wheatley subsidy, and what will happen is that part of the savings of people is to be devoted to slum clearance. When that Measure come up, I hope to show the fallacy of it. What does that mean? It means that you are going to build new slum clearance houses, every one of which will be occupied by a Class "C" tenant. Therefore, if you intensify the building of Class "C" houses, that is, the slum clearance houses, you are by that very act rendering, to some extent, useless the provision that is claimed to be the only decent provision in the Bill.
Let any man with knowledge of the working classes—I do not care whether it is in Wales, Durham or Scotland—note the changed conditions of the last year. During the past year the one thing common throughout the country has been the terrible inability to pay rent. The means test, to a large extent, has taken the balance which enabled them to pay rent. To-day the ownership of Class "C" property in the poorer sections, particularly the slum areas, is not now in many respects, or it will cease to be, a paying proposition. I admit it. In the case of a large number of Class "C houses you can afford to keep them in control, because no more rent can be got for them. In the very poor tenement areas of Glasgow, even when a house has become decontrolled the fact is that you cannot get any more rent, because the people cannot pay it. Therefore, control is of little use in such cases. You are going to build these slum clearance houses and hand them over to a public body, because that class of tenant is ceasing to be a paying proposition. Take the case of Bristol. I saw the figures only the other week, and they show that in the last 12 months, on the
municipal estates and in the slum clearance property there, the increase of arrears has been alarming, particularly in the case of the slum clearance property. Why is that? It is because the poor cannot pay; and the cost of collecting is huge. The result is that that class of property is to be handed over to the municipalities, because it can no longer offer a profit.
It is held out as a great proposal in the Bill that it will afford a defence for the sub-tenant. Will it I That suggestion was riddled by a very able speech yesterday from the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate). I propose to examine it from another angle. Where are the sub-tenants? Most of them are in, comparatively speaking, larger houses, and, wherever they are, they are, I would not say always, but very largely, poor. One very remarkable thing about the poor is how decent they are to their fellow poor, and there is little exploitation in this matter, though I do not deny that there is some. I represent a terribly poor area, and it is remarkable how kind the poor are to one another there. If there is exploitation, it is in big houses that can be sub-divided into rooms and relet. There is no defence for these people in the present Bill. In Kensington, for instance, most of the sub-tenancies are in large houses which are to be decontrolled under the Bill, and therefore in those cases the Bill provides no defence for the sub-tenant, because, when the house is decontrolled, the subtenant is automatically decontrolled. The landlord simply increases the rent, the other fellow charges the sub-tenant, and between them they share the swag. It is true that in the case of Class "C" houses, which are to be controlled, the sub-tenant has a defence, because the landlord may take the tenant to court if he finds that exploitation is taking place, but it is in those cases that exploitation of the very poor is rarest; it is in the large, sub-divided house that it prevails most, and is most felt by working people.
As to the question of houses passing out of control, I should have thought that that in itself would have been sufficient to cause the Labour party to vote against this Measure, because, under it, large numbers of houses will pass out of control. The Bill is to come to an end in five years, At present, roughly speaking, about 40,000 Class "C" houses are
being decontrolled every year. That under the present Act, without amendment. In five years, that will mean less than 200,000, because the figure of 40,000, is perhaps, exaggerated, so that the very best that we shall get from the Bill is that 200,000 houses out of over 4,000,000 will remain controlled at the end of five years. Moreover, if a tenant leaves his house two days before the Bill becomes law, the house will be decontrolled, while if he leaves it one day after the Bill becomes law the house will remain controlled, and we shall still have the anomaly of one person paying a much higher rent than another for a similar house.
I should like to enter a plea also for the Class "B" house. It is a mistake to think that nowadays the Class "B" tenant is the Class "B" tenant of even two or three years ago. Everyone who knows the conditions of the past two years must have been aware, even before this report was issued, of the appalling condition of many men who previously occupied good posts, and are now reduced almost to beggary and penury. I know of a calico printing and dye works not far from where my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) lives, where, owing to rationalisation, a whole factory has been shut down, and men who were getting £7 and £8 a week, and had entered into good houses at that time on the strength of their earnings, are to-day having to live on their savings in a very small way. Their houses are to be decontrolled, and they are to be turned adrift into the open market to pay any rent that may be demanded.
When a house is decontrolled and the owner requires possession, he will not now need to prove that the tenant is in arrears with his rent, but only that he wishes to have possession, and he will get an order from the court for possession. That is a problem which has been omitted from this Bill, and a tenant who is in a house built since the War has no protection; it is only necessary to show that it is desirable that the tenant should be put out, and that the owner should get control of the house, in order to get an order for possession from the court. When a house is under control in the ordinary way, it is necessary to prove that there are arrears of rent, but to-day, once the house has passed out of control,
it is only necessary for the owner to show that he wants possession. At any rate, the decisions of the Scottish courts are to the effect that they cannot refuse a decree once the house is decontrolled and the owner asks for possession.
This Bill, viewed from any angle, seems to me to be a shockingly reactionary Measure, and, accordingly, we ask in our Amendment for its rejection. May I make a last appeal to the House? The other day we were discussing Scottish Home Rule, but the only two issues in Scotland that I know of at the moment are those of income and of houses. The problem with which we are faced at the moment throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, and of England also, is the working people's dread of losing their homes. Men and women can stand anything but that. They can stand suffering. I have seen men who went through, in the trenches, sufferings that I cannot describe, and came back hardened. I have seen men who could stand in a criminal dock and take five years from a judge, and take it without a quiver. I have seen the same men, when they were ordered from their houses, cry. I have seen women, who could stand up to anything, huddled together in a rent court, as numbers of them are every day. So great has the problem become in my native city that a court which used to sit three days a week now sits eight times a week, morning and afternoon, and there are not enough judges to get on with the work. Formerly an owner could get a decree within 10 days. To-day, so great is the congestion that he must wait a month.
The working classes are faced with this problem of rents every day with increasing severity. The Prime Minister has said that 2,000,000 are not likely to get work easily again even if trade becomes good—2,000,000 human souls. This Bill condemns them further. They had some hope that at least a Government that could reduce interest, a Government that could reduce unemployment benefit, a Government that could reduce wages, would surely be fair. Was it not a National Government? Poor people thought— they may have been wrong— that a great Prime Minister who was doing these things would be fair. Is there anybody who fought an election
as a Labour candidate that did not see poor people voting for the other candidate because, after all, they said, the Prime Minister would be fair, and, having done all these things, would attack the landlords also? Hopes were held out to them that by this Bill a decent equality of rents would be restored. But what has the Prime Minister done? He has broken his pledge, and I say that this Bill, viewed from a working-class angle, is merely another dead growth as far as the working classes are concerned. We ask members of all parties—Liberal, Tory or Labour—who feel that the great bulk of this Bill is bad from a working-class standpoint, and that it ought to be rejected and reintroduced, to vote with us to-night, and to say to the Government that they want a Rent Bill that will restore rents to the pre-war level, that will bring every home, both past and present, under control, and that will at least see that no working-class family in this country who cannot, owing to poverty, pay their rent, shall be evicted; in other words, a Bill which, while it cannot make them sure of everything in life, will ensure at least that, in this great wealthy country, every man will be secured a shelter for himself, for his wife, and, above all, for his bairns.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
4.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend has not treated me very fairly in leaving me practically not one argument that, I think, needs to be adduced in favour of the rejection of the Bill. He has gone into it in the greatest detail, and I hope my hon. and right hon. Friends above the Gangway will see their way to oppose the Second Reading. This is an occasion when they ought to demonstrate their very deep resentment that the Government should have dared to produce such a Measure. In thinking over it, the thing that struck me most about the Bill as it actually appeared was the great simplicity of my hon. Friend and myself. In the early days of the National Government we pressed the Government to introduce its Rent Restriction Bill. Even we, who expected practically nothing from that Government, were simple enough to believe that it would contain some elements of relief for the working class from the stress and strain under which they were living. The
Bill, as we have now seen it, has proved how foolish we were, because I do not think the Minister will claim that the vast mass of the people of the country are in any way getting any relief in their daily life through anything that is contained in it.
My hon. Friend has shown quite fully how the case of the large house which is a fit subject for sub-division and subletting is not met at all. I came across the other type of sub-letting that goes on the other day, I think in Sheffield, where it has become a definite business for people with money to purchase large numbers of houses which are not quite at the demolition stage but very near it, divide them up and sub-let them to tenants. Presumably the business of exploitation will be stopped by these proposals. But where that sort of business has been carried on it was the easiest thing in the world to turn that sub-let house from an unfurnished into a furnished house. It could be done by spending a few shillings at a second-hand furniture store and, by so doing, the exploiting, rack-renting landlord makes himself clear of the provisions of rent restriction. This class of trader is not, in my view, engaged in a reputable trade. He is exploiting the poorest section of the people, who cannot afford to rent a whole house of their own, and taking advantage of them. There is no protection for them in this Bill at all.
The Government was returned in the main to balance the Budget and to try to restore the unfavourable trade balance. They were supposed to get the people back into employment. They have failed to do these things in any satisfactory or permanent way. Here was a thing that they could have done without imposing any additional charge on the Budget and without interfering in any way with the balance of foreign trade. It would have had absolutely no effect on the general national position, financial, commercial or industrial, but it would have been a tremendous relief for the working-classes on the whole, because the strain on the working man's wife of meeting this rent week after week is one which no person who is used to a regular income of a reasonable amount can possibly realise. For a woman with a small income to handle, and perhaps half-a-dozen children to look after, with urgent demands for the bare amount of food which will provide nutrition for the family, to keep
intact week after week the very large part of her income that is demanded by the landlord, in which the landlord is protected by the State, is a most terrible strain, and it is a tremendous testimony to the character of the majority of the women who are affected that, in spite of all the temptations to use the money for other purposes and take the risk involved of not being able to pay the rent week after week, out of their limited resources they put that money aside and retain it intact and hand it over to the landlord or his agent.
The Government, recognising the struggle and effort that the working-class population have in these days to live, could not even by a fractional amount impose a reduction on rents which are absolutely unjustifiable compared with other price levels. They could not say to these people, "We cannot give you your houses back at the pre-war level," which in my view was their just right. There is no justification now for a house built before the War being let at a higher rent after the War. If they could not go to that length, they could at least have made some reduction of the very heavy rental charges that the common people have to bear, and so have made their lives easier and given them some idea that they were not merely the tools of capitalistic exploitation to be driven down to starvation level. They could have done that without any danger to anyone except that the interests concerned would probably have been a bit restive. Every other section in the community has been asked to make some sacrifice, and the Government ought to have asked it of those whose incomes are derived from house-owning.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. JAMIESON: We have listened to a, powerful speech by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I know how earnestly he feels about this matter. One could see that from his speech, and he has spoken to me about it outside the House, and I respect him for his feelings in the matter. But, when one comes to review the matter in a cooler and less vehement frame of mind, it is apparent not only that he disregards half-a-loaf as being better than no bread but that he wants both to have his cake and to eat it. He complains in one breath of the amount that has to be paid by tenants
and in another he complains of the shortage of houses and the conditions under which people are housed. It must be obvious that, if you reduce rents at this stage, you are going to prevent the building of the new houses that are required of more modern construction and with more modern equipment, and you are going to continue the shortage of houses for the working-classes that still exists. If he thinks that shortage should be met by houses being built by the local authorities, he is in no better case, because, unless the local authorities can get these houses let at an economic rent, the burden of the deficit will fall on the rates and be borne in very considerable part by the very poor working-class people who at present are having difficulties in paying their rents, because the result of an increase of rates will simply be that they will have to pay more for the houses that they occupy.
I know quite well, representing, as I do, an industrial constituency in the same city as the hon. Member for Gorbals, with what difficulty it is that some of these people meet their rent at present, and how often they are unable to meet it, and, representing a, constituency which is as to a large proportion composed of working-class houses, I should welcome any reduction in rent. But I see that any hope of that reduction can only come in two ways: first, by there being a more plentiful supply of houses, and, secondly, by a reduction in the city rates. When one comes to analyse the amount which, week by week or month by month, has to be paid by a tenant for his house, one finds that in Scotland, at any rate, a very large proportion of that amount never finds its way into the pocket of the landlord but is taken by the city and spent in social services, including public assistance.
I think probably by now the House is more or less familiar with the difference between the Scottish system of rating and valuation and that which prevails in England. I will mention one or two points. In Scotland, a proportion of the rates has to be paid by the owners. It varies in different districts. In Glasgow, it works out at something like five-sevenths, or rather as five is to seven. In calculating the amount of rent which will give the landlord a reasonable return,
he has to add to the amount which he would otherwise have been able to charge as rent the amount which he must pay in rates. On the amount which is so added a further sum has to be added for rates on the rates, because the property is assessed on the actual amount which the tenant has to pay. So that the rate-able value of property in Scotland comprises, not only the rent itself—that is to say, the amount which is to go into the pocket of the landlord—but rates on that amount, and, again, rates on the rates which he has to pay. In addition, the allowance which is paid for the cost of repairs is also included in the rateable value in Scotland. It is upon that enhanced rateable value that the tenant himself has to pay the occupier's rates.
I ask the House to consider how that has worked out under the Rent Restrictions Acts. Taking for convenience the figure of £100 as representing a reasonable rental which in pre-War times the landlord received in Scotland, he was permitted, in 1920, an increase of 40 per cent. But in respect of the different system of rating in Scotland he was also allowed a further percentage of 7½ it was 7½ per cent. in Glasgow. He was allowed a percentage to cover the increase in owner's rates between 1914 and 1920. So that at that time he was allowed to increase his rent from £100 to £147 10s. The increase in respect of additional rates was only up to 1920, because it was thought at that time that rates had reached their peak. The 7½ per cent. which was allowed in Glasgow has been far from sufficient to cover the increase of rates which has taken place since. The owner's rates in Glasgow last year were 5s. 2d. in the £. There has been some increase this year, but I have taken the figures of last year. Allowing for the difference between a 2s. 9d. rate in 1914 and a 5s. 2d. rate in 1931–32, we find that the actual increase in owners' rates on a rental of £147 10s. is £24 7s., leaving out of the increased rental to the owner, not 40 per cent. to meet the increased cost of repairs and the increased amount of interest which he has to pay upon his bond upon the property, and to allow some increase in rent, but a bare £23 or 23 per cent. I have given the Glasgow figures, because they are typical of the rest of
Scotland. In some cases the percentage works out at a little more; in other cases it works out at nothing; and in some districts in Lanarkshire it works out actually at a minus quantity. Therefore, it is apparent that under the previous Rent Restrictions Acts the landlord in Scotland is not getting the increase which, under the Act of 1920, it was expected that he would get. Not only is he not getting the increase, but he is not getting the amount which it was at that time thought that he should get in respect of the increased cost of repairs.
The bon. Member for Gorbals complained about repairs not being done. There may be some instances where repairs are not done. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) yesterday referred to certain streets in his constituency where panes of glass were broken. I am not sure that there is not a good deal in the proverb about people who live in glass-houses, as one has not only to consider whether one is a good landlord but also whether or not he has a good tenant. I go about in my constituency, and I do not find that there are many complaints about repairs not being done by the landlords. I have made inquiries to ascertain whether or not that is the case. Another point which the hon. Member for Gorbals made was that in pre-war days there were a number of empty houses in each tenement, and that, taking into account those empty houses, the landlord was getting a sufficient profit out of the houses which were let. He argued, from that point of view, that at present, when every house in a tenement is let, the landlord is in a better position and can well afford a reduction of rent. Every house in a tenement may be let, but does every tenant pay his rent?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that at the present time rents are paid far more regularly in Glasgow than they were before the War. It was then quite common to have what was called a "moonlight Hit." No one in a Glasgow tenement can now have a moonlight flit because there is no other place to which to go, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) will bear me out in that.

Mr. JAMIESON: I have heard of "moonlight flits" in Glasgow.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has made one himself.

Mr. JAMIESON: I have never made one. The hon. Member for Gorbals spoke about the congestion of the sheriff's court in dealing with rents. He said that it takes weeks to get a decree and that the sheriffs could not undertake the work. Why? Because the tenants were in arrears of rent, and in many cases the arrears are not enforced at all. Therefore, any advantage which may be obtained by a landlord in having his property fully let is more than counterbalanced by the fact that in many cases he is unable to recover the rent. I wish to refer to the figures which were given by the Minister in his speech yesterday. He spoke about a house with a pre-War rent of £15, and showed that, with the owners' and occupiers' rates taken into account, the tenant of such a house now has to pay £30 4s. 9d., of which £15 6s. 5d. goes to the local authority in rates. That, I think, is sufficient in itself to show that a great deal of the difficulty which arises, at any rate, in Scotland, with regard to rents is not because the landlords are extortionate, but because the rates in the cities and in the counties are so high.
There are many disadvantages in the Scottish system of rating. Most of these are not germane to this Bill, but there is one disadvantage which is germane to it. The system causes endless friction between landlord and tenant. I recognise that there are great difficulties in the way of making an alteration and making the Scottish system the same as that in England, but I hope that at some time, and before long, that may be done. There is one suggestion which I wish to make at present and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider before the Bill comes into operation. It ought not to be impossible for every landlord, at least once a year, to notify the tenant of every dwelling-house of the amount which he collects—because he collects in his rents both the owners' rates and the occupiers' rates—and how much of the total amount which he collects represents owners' rates and how much represents occupiers' rates. If that were done, it might tend, in the first place, to put a stop to municipal extravagance, but apart altogether from that, it would bring
home to the tenant that a large proportion of the sum which he is paying—more than half in the case which the right hon. Gentleman gave is not going into the pocket of an extortionate landlord, but is being taken by the local authority and spent for the benefit of the tenant and his fellow citizens. If that position were more widely known, I believe that we should have fewer complaints about the amount of rents payable in Scotland and fewer complaints about the matter raised from the benches opposite, and I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I have listened to every speech which has been delivered since the Minister rose to move the Second Reading yesterday afternoon, and, if this Debate has done nothing else, it has resulted in a very useful pooling of ideas upon the subject of rent—even more useful than the three days' Debate which we had a short time ago on the question of unemployment. I am sure of something else too, that, although the parliamentary stage is to be set to-morrow for a big occasion, when we are to have a very important Debate upon a vital and critical issue facing the country, however much interest is shown in that Debate by the constituents of most of us, even more interest is being shown in this Debate, which is a vital matter in the household budget, far more vital than an instalment of the American Debt may be in the national Budget.
I desire to offer some constructive criticism following upon the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I think we can establish common ground in this respect, that it is impossible to introduce rent restriction legislation in such a manner as to do injustice to no one. It is impossible, once the State intervenes in a matter like this, to be fair to everyone who is to come under the Bill and is to be affected by it. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), speaking in the Debate yesterday, said, I think with profound truth, that under the existing rent restriction legislation the bad landlord comes off better than the good landlord. Whatever we may do in this Bill, there
is bound to be some hardship inflicted on landlords as well as on tenants. The sub-letting provision, I take it, commands the support of all benches so long as it is made strong enough to deal with the abuse that we all know exists. We all know that there is great exploitation of poor people living in single rooms or in two rooms, but even there we may by this Bill inflict hardship and injustice upon some people. Referring to the part of the Bill dealing with sub-letting, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) took an example from the city of Sheffield, an example which I can bear out as one of the representatives of that city. I take it he was using it as an example only, and was not suggesting that there is more than an average dose of original sin among the people of Sheffield in this matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Far from it.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I think we could possibly compare favourably with the city of Glasgow. May I remind the hon. Member that there is in Sheffield a particular reason why there is an abnormally large number of sub-tenants. A Socialist council, with singular lack of foresight, built houses for working people at middle-class rents varying from 12s. to 18s. a week, with the result that these houses can only find economic tenants by being inhabited by Socialist councillors. That is the situation in Sheffield, but that is no reason why we should not endeavour to remove abuses which exist in this practice of sub-letting. If I may draw another parallel, whenever you have a big national undertaking injustice again creeps in, and that is a peg on which I wish to hang my criticism of this Bill.
When the Government carried through their conversion scheme, a great many humble people living on slender savings undoubtedly suffered hardship through the stampede for conversion which took place throughout the country. It is true they voluntarily submitted to that hardship for patriotic reasons, believing it the right thing to do to help the country. When the report on which this Bill is based was drawn up—a very able report if I may say so, as one who has studied it with some considerable care—it went into the conditions affecting the 40 per cent. increase in rentals very meticulously. Since that report was issued an event of vast importance has taken place
which in my view alters the whole situation. I mean the conversion scheme. That was intended to be a starting-handle to bring down the cost of the internal debt to the taxpayers of the country, to bring down the cost of financing contracts to the manufacturers, and the conversion scheme will have failed if it does not also act as a lever for reducing the rents of the working people of this country.
I believe, though I shall undoubtedly get into trouble for saying so from these benches, that the time has come when this 40 per cent. increase should be reduced by Statute. I have a reason, quite apart from the merits of the case, for holding that view. It is that when many of us fought very difficult seats on cuts a year ago, we justified those cuts to our constituents as being necessary in the national interest, or we should not have arrived here. But we all know, wherever we may sit in this House, that these cuts, necessary as they were, by decreasing the purchasing power of the people have in fact had an effect upon employment, and in many cases have had the effect of retarding the absorption into industry of people who were producing goods. If we are able to increase the purchasing power of these poor people, be it only by 1s. a week, which may seem a very small sum to Members of this House, it is a contribution which the House ought to make if it possibly can.
I was rather surprised at one statement which the Secretary of State for Scotland made when addressing the House yesterday. He said that because many of these houses are 17 years older than they were when rent restriction was introduced, that is a reason why the rent should be kept at 40 per cent. above what it was then. I should have thought the inverse was true. As in the Rent Restrictions Acts the necessary finance was provided for keeping these houses in repair, they should have been kept in proper condition, and to tell a man that the house he is living in is 17 years older and 17 years less serviceable than when this legislation was first introduced, seems to me to be hardly an argument in favour of keeping the rents up.
There is a further reason. Unemployment is infinitely more serious than it was two or three years ago. We have a very much greater number of unemployed
people living in these houses than we had then. While it is true that the purchasing value, in terms of the necessities of life, of unemployment benefit and transitional payments is the same to-day, in spite of the cut, as it was in 1929, and more than it was in 1924, that seems to me rather a debating point. We can all foresee the time, and in fact many hon. Members look forward to it, when there will be an increase in the price of commodities. There is bound to be an increase in the cost of some of these necessities of life, and to use that argument is hardly a relevant reason for maintaining rents at a high level. The duty of this House as I see it is to keep faith with the people who accepted these cuts and returned us here to support this National Government. There have been wage cuts in various industries. There have been cuts for miners and for cotton workers, and very savage cuts in many cases for the employés of co-operative societies. I was reading only the other day of notices of cuts ranging from 10 to 17 per cent. and affecting 16,000 employés in Scotland. There have been cuts even among the headquarters staff at Transport House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Oh, no.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: All these people have suffered cuts.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to make a wrong statement. It was only a request for a reduction in wages.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I thought I said notice of reduction.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Member tell us what is the source of his information as to the cuts at Transport House?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: The statement appeared in the Press, and, if it is incorrect, I am prepared to withdraw it, but it was widely circulated not very long ago that there had been a 5 per cent. cut at that august establishment. The fact that cuts have taken place over so wide an area is a reason why the Government should do all they can to bring about a reduction in these rents. We all know that to the extent of 25 per cent. this increase was to cover the cost of repairs, and I am bound to say that my experience has been that in too many
cases these repairs have not been carried out by the landlord. There is a legal redress for the tenant, we know, when the landlord fails to carry out repairs. But we know also, if we have any knowledge whatever of human nature, that if there is one thing these people are more terrified of doing than another it is taking the landlord to court. Even if they are successful in bringing the landlord to book, they know full well that if evil days should fall upon them, and if they have the misfortune to fall even 1s. behind in their dues, the landlord will retaliate and put them out into the street. When we remember that everything but rent has gone down, although I cannot go the whole of the road with the hon. Members opposite who I understand suggest that rents should be brought down to the pre-war level and the whole 40 per cent. swept away, I do feel that I am able to support the statement in the Minority Report over the name of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), who says:
Again, my colleagues clearly admit that, as regards the 25 per cent. allowed for increased cost of repairs, there has been a substantial fall in the price of building materials and labour costs. Notwithstanding this admission they do not recommend any alteration.
There would appear to have been no difference of opinion on that point that the cost of materials had fallen. That was in July, 1931, and the process has continued. The cost of materials is still falling. I would make an appeal to the Minister not to adopt too rigid an attitude over the details of this Bill when we get into Committee. I suggest it is peculiarly a Bill which Parliament should be allowed to shape so far as its details are concerned, and on which the private Member might be able to play his part in doing all he can to improve it and so help to turn out the best Bill we possibly can. If bon. Members on all benches act on the principle on which we who are elected to this House should act —the greatest good for the greatest number—while we know perfectly well that we are bound to make blunders and inflict hardships on this person and on that, for it is quite impossible to avoid it in legislation of this kind', and if we do our best to improve this Bill along the lines which I have suggested, then we shall have succeeded in enabling the
National Government to make its greatest national gesture by bringing a message of hope to those thousands of people who trusted it and sent it into power.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: The hon. Member who has just spoken has been thinking aloud. He has made one of those speeches which, coming from the Tory benches, are rare and refreshing. He recognises as much as we do on these benches that the question of rents is of vital importance to millions of people in this country. The great objection that we have on these benches to this Bill is that it apparently only contains one good point, and that point in itself may be not so good as it appears. That good point is that it brings under control what are called the Class "C" houses. So far as those houses are concerned we agree that the Bill is good, but my complaint against the Bill is that it leaves out many things which we would wish put in. We all know that the class of people who live in the "B" houses should also receive protection. Probably equally as much as any other class in the community the clerk class, the artisan class, the lower middle class, people who have been accustomed to salaries of anything from £6, £7 and up to £10 a week have had terrible reductions in their salaries, and have extreme difficulty to-day in meeting their liabilities. They are offered little or no protection in the Bill. Hon. Members generally and the Government will hear bitter complaints, particularly from the London suburbs, from this class of people, who are in the main the loyal supporters of the Government. We have a perfect case in which to ask that the people who live in the houses included in Class "B" should receive the same measure of protective control as the people in Class "C" houses.
The Minister put forward a point about the subtenants. There is no protection for the subtenants in this Bill. It is true that it is up to the landlord to take a certain course, and that the subtenant may do certain things, but in actual practice the position of the subtenant is that in many cases he has to live with the landlord, he has no desire to live a life of haggling, quarrelling and misery with the landlord and rather than do that, in the vast majority of cases, he allows the whole thing to go by default. One of the
main objections to the Bill is precisely the point which the hon. Member opposite has just put, namely, the question of keeping on the 40 per cent, increase. My experience in my own constituency, in the heart of the Midlands, in the Black Country, is that one of the bitterest grievances the tenants have is that not only have they to pay the 40 per cent, increase of rent, but that the landlord in the vast majority of cases refuses to carry out his obligations. It must be the common experience of hon. Members to hear that in spite of the fact that 40 per cent, increase is paid in rent the landlord or his agent or factor in many instances has not done a single stroke to better the house, to put a bit of paint on it or to do anything to keep it tidy for nearly 20 years,
The landlords had an excuse during the War that it was impossible to get labour. After the War the Rent Restrictions Act came along and the 40 per cent. increase of rent was allowed. Then the landlord said: "If it was not for this restriction, I could get 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. increase in rent. It is true that you pay me 40 per cent. increase, but I am not going to do anything for you. If you want anything done you must do it for yourselves. If you do not like that, I should be only too pleased if you would get out, so that I can let the house to someone else, for double the rent." Everywhere I go, particularly among the women in my constituency this same complaint is made. If the landlords find themselves unpopular, as they do, many of them have brought it upon themselves by not playing the game.
The Bill is based on the report of a committee, but the evidence that was taken before the committee is at least three years old. It is two and a-quarter years since the committee first met and 18 months since the committee reported. Therefore, we are right to point out that a very great deal of change has taken place during the interval. There have been drastic reductions in wages and interest rates, there has been a conversion loan, there has been a crisis, there has been a complete change in the circumstances of millions of people, and I am sure that if all these facts had been available before the committee at the time they sat, they would have recommended some reduction in the 40 per cent. increase of rent. It may be argued
that three years ago the standard of wages was considerably higher and that there was no particular hardship in the 40 per cent. If that argument was true then it is not true to-day.
The policy of the Government, which has been announced again and again, is that there should be a rise in wholesale prices, in commodity prices; in other words that there should be an increase in the cost of living. That has been expressed as the policy of the Government. Therefore, in a comparatively short time we shall be faced with this position, that we shall have a falling market so far as wages are concerned, the 40 per cent. increase of rent will remain precisely the same as it was 10, 12 or 14 years ago, and side by side with that there will be an increase in commodity prices which will still further put a burden upon those who are the least able to afford it. An increase in commodity prices will hit all classes of the community, not only the people who occupy the "C" class houses but those who occupy the "B" class houses, and there is good reason why the Government in Committee should be willing to make some concessions along the lines I have indicated.
At the bottom of all this, the Government would like to see control taken away altogether. If they could express the views of the landlord class behind them, they would allow control to cease. The reason why that cannot be done is because if they take control off altogether they could create a situation in the country, consequent upon the demands of the landlords, which would be very serious. It is not because the Government have any love for control even for the people in the Class "C" houses that they are keeping on control; it is a matter of expediency. Long before the five years period has expired there will be a definite revolt against rent. The proportion which is taken out of an ordinary workman's income for rent increases almost week by week. Let me give an instance from my own constituency. Twelve months ago the average wage was £2 a week. That was little enough, but there have since been cuts in wages which have reduced the average wage to 35s. or 36s. a week, but the same rent has to be paid that was paid previously. Two out of every five men in my constituency are unemployed. A
man who is living on transitional benefit or unemployment payment of 28s. to 32s. a week has to pay in rent 8s., 9s. or 10s. a week. When they have paid the rent they can only do it at the expense of the stomachs of their little children. That is simply a bare statement of the truth.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is not that due to the fact that the bakers will not reduce their prices?

Mr. BANFIELD: The hon. Member must have a bit of sense about it. I am trying to impress upon the House a very serious matter. Take the position of a working man with a wage of 35s. or 36s. a week. He has to pay 10s. a week rent, which leaves him with 26s. to provide for his wife, himself, and four or five children, which is the usual family in the Black Country—food, clothing and everything else. The burden is far too much. What right have the landlords to say, when everybody else has had some reduction, either in their investment income, in salary, in wages or in other ways, that they should be a special class by themselves and that the increased rent they received 10 or 12 years ago, at a time when wages were considerably higher, and the cost of building material was considerably higher, should not be reduced. That is quite a reasonable statement. There was a case for some increase in rent owing to the rise in the cost of building materials and labour, but to-day that is not the position. I am informed that to-day the cost of building is not more than 25 per cent. compared with what it was.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: It is more than that.

Mr. BANFIELD: I may be wrong. Without tying myself down to the exact figure, it is a fact that the cost of building materials and repairs has decreased very considerably during the last 12 or 18 months, and there is a case for reduction of rents. There must come a breaking point. Members of this House cannot come here, and in the sacred name of economy declare that wages must be reduced and still further reduced, that the country's necessities demand drastic reductions in wages and cost of production, and at the same time declare that rents must stand at the level at which they stood in 1919 and 1920. On
reflection every member of the House must realise that that is an impossible position. I am pleading not only for what might be called the manual class, but for the black-coated worker, the man who thinks, quite wrongly, that he is a bit above the level of the ordinary manual worker. He is a man who has embarked on certain responsibilities and is to be very hardly hit by this Bill. I hope that when the Bill reaches Committee and we move Amendments to cover the points that I have indicated, hon. Members on the Tory side will play a square game. If not, they will have to reckon with their constituents. The day of reckoning will come. This question of rents should receive the very earnest consideration of the Government, and I hope it is not too late for them to consider whether they cannot embody in the Bill the principle of the reduction of rents.

5.33 p.m.

Miss CAZALET: I would like to make one or two observations on the Bill, and to ask the Government one or two questions. I welcome the Bill from many points of view, and, like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am very glad indeed that Class "C" houses are not to be decontrolled, anyway in the next five years. The figures given yesterday by the Minister of Health showed the absolute necessity for this, as only 13 per cent. of the houses built since the War are of the type whose rents can be paid by the very poorest of our citizens. Of course, one of the great difficulties in London in connection with housing has been the enormous influx of new population that is always going on. I saw not long ago an interesting poster which showed that no fewer than 1,000,000 new people have come into London during the last 10 years. That is equivalent to the population of 10 cities the size of Oxford. Of course, if, when control is removed from "C" class houses in five years' time, the hopes expressed by the Minister are to be fulfilled and the supply of houses is to be found equal to the demand, it is absolutely necessary that all housing efforts should be co-ordinated. I hope very much that the Government will make a great drive now with slum clearance. This is a particularly good time for such a drive because,. as has been said by many hon. Members, there is a great fall in the cost of building and money is very cheap. We shall hear more
on this question, no doubt, in the Debate on the Housing Bill on Thursday. I am convinced that from every point of view the riddance of the slums would be the greatest economy that the Government could possibly undertake, besides removing a most terrible blot on our social life
.
I only wish that the Bill was as simple and as easy to understand as was the Minister's speech yesterday, or that I could afford to give a copy of the Minister's speech to every one of my constituents. Unfortunately many of the newspapers had not sufficient space to print the whole of the Minister's speech. Judging by my postbag, which must be the same as that of many hon. Members, there are many misapprehensions as to what this Bill will or will not do. One of the most general of these misapprehensions is that recontrol will be allowed in the case of "C" houses that are already decontrolled. I am glad that the Minister has taken steps, apart from his speech of yesterday, to make clear that that is not the case, and that there will not be any recontrol of decontrolled "C" houses.
The other question which is causing great concern in my division and in other parts of London is with regard to "C" tenancies in "A" houses. Many people are under the misapprehension that when these come to be decontrolled as between landlord and tenant, the subtenancy will also become decontrolled. I gather from the Minister that that is not the case. I understand that where tenants have sublet all the subtenancies will remain controlled until they become vacant. As far as I could understand the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) just now, he did not think this was the case. Therefore, I should be very glad if the Minister would repeat his statement.
I would ask one question with regard to "A" houses. I understand that contracts entered into between landlords and tenants still hold good. For instance, if a landlord has contracted to let an "A" house to Mr. Smith until August or a certain date, with six months' notice, this holds good and will not be cancelled when this Bill comes into force. I would ask this question: There are many cases—I know of some in different parts of London —where the tenancy is weekly or monthly, and with no written provision or record
of what in fact was the agreement. I wonder what is the intention of the Government in this matter. Surely something will be done to prevent a landlord from demanding possession at 24 hours' notice, which would be very unfair.
I am extremely glad that repossession is to be made easier for the landlord. I am also glad of the new protection given under the Bill to subtenants against exorbitant rents. I do hope that everything will be done to give full publicity to these rights in the simplest possible form, by notice in the rent books. I see in Clause 8 of the Bill that the Minister may make regulations, but I would like an assurance that he will make those regulations, because I think that that is the only way in which many people can get to know about their rights, and not only that, but about their duties. The fact that the Bill is carrying out the recommendations of a departmental committee, which presented a report that was unanimous, except for one member, and that the committee comprised all phases of political opinion, is a sure proof that the Measure is in the interests of the great majority of the people of this country, and is in no way a piece of sectional legislation.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I think that the Government will find that the Bill will give rise to widespread and serious social disquiet, for a reason which I will deal with in a few minutes. Before coming to that, let me confine myself to general considerations and not raise Committee points which can be more usefully dealt with elsewhere. I want to say a few words about the Amendment which has been moved with such feeling and power. I cannot support that Amendment, because in my opinion the Bill brings two considerable benefits to the working classes in the narrow sense in which my hon. Friends opposite use that description. On the one hand, by continuing for the considerable period of five years control over the rental of "C" houses the Bill is going to bring a measure of relief to very large numbers of people in poor circumstances who have been disturbed in mind for a long time as to what their position would be. In that respect I think the Bill is to be welcomed.
The second point is with regard to subletting. I have heard observations to-
day as if this scandal of sub-letting were confined to particular areas like Glasgow, or to a particular kind of action by a landlord who has bought some scrap furniture and transformed parts of Ms house into furnished accommodation, thus removing it from the operation of the Statute. The scandal of sub-letting is occurring in every division in the land, and particularly in London. The most serious scandal arises in the houses of tenants who are themselves protected under the Statutes, and who are charging exorbitant rents for single rooms in many cases. I know of a case in Hammersmith where the rent was 10s. a week, and there was a bedroom to let unfurnished in the upper part of a very small house. The woman who was receiving the protection of the Statute was actually asking 25s. a week for that room. Numerous cases of poor old age pensioners have been brought to my notice in different parts of the country. They have said, with tears, that out of their 10s. a week they were being charged 9s. a week for a single room in a small house, itself under the protection of the Statutes.
In certain respects I think the Bill is going to bring relief and justice to large numbers of these people. On the grounds which I have mentioned I welcome the Bill and cannot therefore support the Amendment which has been moved from the opposite benches. But in considering the effect of the provisions of the Bill I have in mind a description of "the working classes" far wider than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton). He is always talking of "the working classes" as if that description could be restricted to manual workers. I would not venture on the spur of the moment to offer the House a compact definition of "working classes" but, speaking generally, I have always regarded workers as those who are dependent upon their own exertions for their livelihood in whatever part of society they are found. I exclude from that description those fortunate persons who are living on inherited or unearned wealth.

Mr. MAXTON: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman call himself a worker?

Mr. KNIGHT: Most certainly. The hon. Member with unusual rashness ventures to ask me whether I call myself a worker. Any sort of test that he can apply with reference to that description, I should pass with the greatest ease, as he can discover for himself. For the moment, I leave the matter there, with the general description which I have given, and which, I think, will be accepted on all sides of the House. But with regard to the first Clause of the Bill I ask the Solicitor-General carefully to weigh this consideration, which I offer with the greatest respect to the Government. I believe that the operation of this Clause is going to cause serious and widespread disquiet among men and women who are entitled to look to this Government for protection.
Frankly, I do not believe that it is fully realised in the country yet, but let the House consider that the control level of rate-able value in the London area is going to be reduced from £105 to £45 and that in the provinces from £78 to £35. Let hon. Members reflect upon the sort of person who will be brought within the Bill as a result of that serious reduction. You will have the better class of artisans, superior craftsmen, clerks, small professional men—your local doctor, your local solicitor, your local dentist—all brought within the ambit of the Bill. What is the position of these people My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton frequently speaks with compelling eloquence about the plight under present economic conditions of those to whom he applies the description of "the working classes" in the narrow sense. But does he not know of the plight of these unfortunate men and women to whom I refer'? At this moment many of them are at their wits' end. I raise this matter with all the more earnestness because I have already received a number of letters not from my own constituency alone but many from dwellers in London who are gravely disturbed and concerned as to their position under the proposals in Clause 1.
These people at this moment are under the heaviest weather economically. Their expenses are mounting up, they are struggling bravely to maintain themselves in the positions to which they have attained and they are confronted with increasing difficulties. These men and women are key figures in industry.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No one in this House apart from one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite believes that the key people in industry are the manual workers. The manual workers are working under direction and, while I have the greatest respect for all these classes, I say that as a matter of fact persons of the sort I have just indicated are the key persons in industry. Those people, in present circumstances, do not know which way to turn—

Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that the position of a panel doctor who is a working member of the medical profession, or that of a local lawyer or a teacher, is comparable with the position of an unemployed engineer?

Mr. KNIGHT: Curiously enough, my hon. Friend has taken exactly those cases which are parallel. I am within the recollection of the House when I say that I was speaking for a class which included engineers.

Mr. MAXTON: The unemployed engineer.

Mr. KNIGHT: The unemployed engineer who has managed to keep his house in the London area is very often living in a house which is rated at £45. In the provinces—in the city of Nottingham for instance—many people of that sort are living in £35 houses, and will be brought within the ambit of the Bill. say that that provision opens up an alarming prospect to large numbers of people who are seriously disturbed as to what their position will be if this Bill in its present form becomes an Act. am bound to say to the Government, "Is their's the quarter from which a proposal of that kind should come '1" These men and women in the constituencies never contemplated that the National Government was going to level this blow at them and, with great respect, I ask, What authority did the Government receive from the country last year to frame these proposals? "Large sections of the electorate of the better classes helped the Government on that occasion. Did those people suppose for a moment that this sort of proposal was going to be brought forward by this Government? Frankly, I think that the Government have misjudged their opportunity, and I hope that they will not regret it. My
belief is that, as the days go by and the true meaning of this Bill begins to percolate through the country, the people to whom I have referred who are brought within this Clause are going to talk very loudly. My desire is that this Government should do well, that it should go on doing better and better—

Mr. MAXTON: Still hoping.

Mr. KNIGHT: Still hoping by all means, and I hope still more when I reflect on the only possible alternative to this Government.

Mr. MAXTON: Is that the best you can say for them now?

Mr. KNIGHT: I do not know whether my hon. Friend considers himself as a second alternative but he frightens me even more than the other alternative. As a practical person who wants to see the business of this country carried on energetically and gives what help he can to the only Administration which is, apparently, available, I would like to see this Government going from strength to strength and doing even better than it has done. I hope therefore that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will appreciate the spirit in which I am making these remarks. I am taking advantage of this opportunity of a free interchange of views in the House to say quite frankly that the Government ought to reconsider the position as far as Clause I of the Bill is concerned. I suggest to the Solicitor-General and to the Minister of Health that before the Committee stage they ought to give serious consideration to the question of limiting the operation of Clause 1 and of lifting decontrol up to the highest possible figure. Otherwise, I think that the Government will be open to grave criticism—criticism which, I, myself, would desire to avoid.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight)with the help of some of his hon. Friends opposite has been making rather a melodramatic attack on Clause 1 of the Bill which he has described as a deadly blow levelled at certain classes of people. He appears to forget that the. decontrol which Clause 1 extends, has been going on slowly for years. The only people who are going to be affected by it are those who have been in their houses
for 12 years or more. Otherwise those houses would have fallen vacant within the period provided for, and would have been decontrolled already, and I do not think that the menace as he represented it to be, is going to be so widespread or so serious as he would have the House believe.

Mr. KNIGHT: I fastened on the observation made by the Minister of Health yesterday that half the houses in Class "B" the class, to which I referred, are decontrolled. It is just the experience of the tenants in the decontrolled houses which is frightening these people who now find themselves about to be brought up against the same menace.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I suggest that the hon. and learned Member is incorrect in his assumption, and that the people who are disturbed are those who do not realise that this has been happening for a considerable number of years. They have a mistaken idea, which some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon are apt to foster, that decontrol and increase of rent are synonymous. Anyone who has had dealings with property during the last 12 years knows that such is not the ease. Many hon. Members opposite would like to believe that it is the case but in fact it is not. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said and several other lion. Members left it to be implied, that the 40 per cent. which is now permitted as an addition to the pre-war rent ought to be removed owing to the sacrifices asked for by the Government from the tenants at the last election. The hon. Member said and other hon. Members implied that similar sacrifices had not been asked for from the landlord. But they have not attempted to prove that assertion. I say it in no spirit of complaint but merely to state the facts and to prevent a wrong impression getting abroad, that there is no class which has been asked to make or which has made such sacrifices as the property-owning class.
I will join with hon. Members opposite in restoring rents to the pre-war level when they introduce provisions for reducing rates and taxes and the cost of repairs and wages to pre-war levels. When they get all these things down to
go into the Lobby with them to reduce rents to pre-war level. But while taxation on property is higher than ever it was before, when there are more rules and more regulations than ever before and when greater difficulties are put in the way of property owners than ever before, I cannot support the view of hon. Members opposite in that respect. I must protest, too, against the way in which hon. Members opposite continually base their arguments on the assumption that the majority of landlords are bad landlords. They appear to assume that all tenants are perfect and all landlords bad. Of course it is not so. The average people of this country are pretty decent on the whole and that applies to landlords as well as to tenants. I know some jolly bad landlords and some jolly bad tenants but I know more of both who are very good. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to exercise a sense of proportion in considering these matters. Landlords have bad to bear the burden of greatly increased taxation and I do not think it reasonable that they should be asked to bear the burdens of the tenants as well. There may be other reasons for arguing against this 40 per cent, increase but to advance as a thesis that landlords ought to bear their tenants' contribution to the national Exchequer, as well as their own, is not reasonable.
I desire for a moment to turn to a totally different side of the question and to consider how the Bill will affect housing in the rural areas. The curse of the Rent Restrictions Acts, although in some measure the situation is improved by this Bill, but not as far as we should like to see it improved, is that the questions of possession and of rent have been mixed up. Control has insisted not only that the rent shall be limited, but that it shall be impossible for the landlord to obtain possession. This Bill, in one of its Clauses, gives the landlord a more reasonable chance of obtaining possession of his own house if he wants it, and so far that is all to the good, but it still, particularly with reference to the non-decontrol of Class "C" houses, puts the landlord of the controlled house in the position that he not only has to let his house at a limited rent, but he cannot get possession when he wants it. I cannot see, and I have never been able to see, what the logic of putting those two things
together is, and certainly what the logic of it will be when decontrol does not come with vacant possession. When decontrol and vacant possession came together there was something to be said for it, but if, as under this Bill, decontrol does not come by obtaining possession, I submit that there is no case for keeping the landlord out of possession of a house if he wants it, provided he is going to keep it at a reasonable rent.
Practically everybody will agree that it is reasonable that Class "C" houses shall continue in control as far as rent is concerned. I freely give hon. Members opposite that point, and I admit that there is serious danger of profiteering in the rents of what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) described as the working classes, accepting his definition of that term, not that of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham. There is that danger, and I equally appreciate that something must be done about it and that the continued control of Class "C" houses is not a bad way of dealing with it. But this is the point: If you are going to continue the system of refusing vacant possession to the owner while the house is controlled, you are going to do very serious harm to the re-conditioning of houses and the improvement of housing conditions in the rural areas.
As I said in this House in another connection the other day, the housing of the rural population, the agricultural labourers, is not and never has been an economic proposition. It has always been a question of providing them houses, and the house has been, in part, the wages of the man. By keeping control of the "C" class houses—and virtually all agricultural cottages come under that class— you are putting the landlord in the position that if a house becomes vacant he has three courses open to him. He may not at the moment have somebody else whom he wants to put in. It may be that he keeps that house as attached to a certain farm or for a certain purpose. It is not a tied cottage—and some of us are as strongly against tied cottages as hon. Members opposite—but he has to provide accommodation for the workers on that particular farm, and by custom that cottage is attached to that farm.
For some reason or other, temporarily possibly the farm is without a tenant. Under the Bill as it stands, the landlord
will be in this position, that he has either to keep that cottage vacant for an indefinite period of time, until it is wanted for the purposes of the farm, or he can occupy it himself, or he has got to put somebody in, who will stay there after the cottage is wanted again for the farm to which it is attached, and whom he cannot remove. Then, as to the re-conditioning, it often happens that you have two attached cottages, and they fall vacant together. It is not convenient to re-condition them or to improve them immediately. The landlord possibly wants to put somebody in until after the Budget or until for some other reason he knows what he can do with those cottages, and again he will be put in the position that, if he fills those houses, if he wants to wait for any reason or has anything he wants to do with them in the future, in the way of re-conditioning, he has either to leave them vacant till he is able to do that—and in these uncertain days it is very difficult to know when he can—or he has to fill them with tenants who may by their presence there put off the re-conditioning of the houses indefinitely.
I am going to make a suggestion to the Minister, which I hope he will consider very carefully before the Committee stage of the Rill. It is purely a suggestion, with nothing particularly sacred about the figure, but I suggest that below a certain low rental, I will say an annual value of £10, Class "C" houses, particularly in the rural areas, should become decontrolled except that the rental may not be raised above that figure. That is to say, that as far as rent is concerned, the houses will still be controlled, in that the rent cannot be raised above that figure, but that it will be possible for landlords in the rural areas to put people into those houses for a short time and to obtain vacant possession when they need it. Experience has shown that the present laws—and, I suppose, the law in future will be the same—do not give the good landlord a proper opportunity of obtaining possession.
With that suggestion and that criticism, I want to welcome the Bill as a courageous and constructive effort to deal with a very serious problem. I do not agree with those who say that it is ill-timed. I believe that this question of rent restriction has been a continuous
canker which has been damaging the housing question and seriously affecting for ill the housing, anyhow of the rural population, for years past. A constructive step towards this end is a good and a sound step, and I congratulate the Government on having had the courage to take it.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. HOPKINSON: It seems to me that during the whole course of this Debate the House has lost the immense significance of certain passages in the Minister's speech in introducing the Bill. The most significant part of that speech, to my mind, was that, having introduced a Bill to continue the control of certain classes of property for another five years, he announced at the same time that he was going to introduce another Bill this week which in its essence is a Bill to produce more houses of the same class. The significance of that juxtaposition of the two Bills is obvious. As anyone who has had any practical experience of housing will know, as long as he continues the control of any given class of house, not a single house of that class will ever be built in this country. That has been the experience in the past. The Minister pointed out that in the case of certain classes of house, a very large number have been built. The demands of people for that class of house were being met. Why? Because the degree of control was very small indeed. Then he pointed out that in the case of Class "C" houses practically none of them had been built. Again why? Because the control was very drastic in that particular case.
The right hon. Gentleman gave vent to another fallacy, which I think he himself must really know is a fallacy, when he suggested—I do not say that he said it in actual words—that if he were to order decontrol of the whole of a certain class of house, the rent of those houses would at once bound up. He must know perfectly well that that is not the case. The reason why the rents of decontrolled houses jump up, as they undoubtedly do, is simply that there are only a few houses decontrolled bit by bit, instead of the whole lot being decontrolled at one time. Everybody knows quite well that if decontrol were wiped out completely from the whole of the "C" class houses, the rise in rents would be hardly appreciable.
How could the landlords charge more rent? In most cases even the controlled rents are more than the tenants can afford to pay, and the fallacy to which I have referred springs from the view that what a landlord wants, if lie has working class property, is to see it empty. The only condition under which a landlord wishes to see his house empty is the condition which is set up by the control of rents. Under no other circumstances can any landlord wish to have a vacant house in his possession.
I have done my best, as the Americans say, to debunk the housing policy of the Government, but I am afraid it is absolutely useless. We have got into the habit of living on cant entirely. But those of us who have spent both money and time in the endeavour to house the working classes wish that sooner or later some Government of this country would see that they themselves are making the difficulty by this foolish interference with the ordinary laws of supply and demand, which apply just as much to Class "C" houses as they do to any other class of houses. I would, in conclusion, again impress upon the House that the introduction during this week of a Bill to produce more houses of the "C" class is an absolutely necessary consequence of the extension of the control of those houses for another five years, because the Minister and everybody who is most concerned knows very well that the extension of that control means that not a single "C" class house will be built until the expiration of those five years, except at the expense of the rest of the people.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. CAPE: I have listened very attentively to nearly all the speeches that have been made on this Bill, and from every part of the House the general opinion has been expressed that there should be control of some kind. Some would have gone in for a lesser amount of control than the Bill provides, and others would have adopted more, but the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) alone believes in the decontrol of all houses. Having known the hon. Member for a considerable number of years, I am not surprised at that, because if he had found himself in agreement with any particular body of men in this House it would have been something new. The hon. Member for
Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who moved the Amendment, thought it right and proper to give us a lecture as to why we were not dividing against the Bill. He is perfectly entitled to do that, and we, on these benches, do not resent it. I hope however, he will take my words in reply in the same spirit as that in which we have taken his criticism of us. Everybody knows that the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), when they are advocating anything that is for the benefit of the working classes, do it always with zealousness, earnestness, and sincerity, and while there may be a difference of opinion between us as to the method of approach to this Bill, I suggest to them that we have as much sincerity, earnestness, and zeal as they have.
They believe that a direct Amendment against the Second Reading is the best course for them to take. They are entitled to think that. We think that the best course is to let the Bill have a Second Reading and then to put down Amendments on the Committee stage and try to induce the House to accept them with a view to improving the Bill. But, says the hon. Member for Gorbals, the Minister told us yesterday that he would not be prepared to accept any Amendments. If that be so, the same thing applies to the Amendment which we are discussing now. If the Minister will not accept Amendments to the Clauses of the Bill, it stands to reason that he will not accept this Amendment, which is a direct negative to the Second Reading. Therefore, we are all in the same boat. Neither my hon. Friends below the Gangway nor the Members who sit on these benches are satisfied with the Bill. While we are not satisfied with the contents of the Bill, we are less satisfied with the Bill because of what it does not contain. We consider that the recontrol of decontrolled houses ought to he given a great deal of consideration by the House. We hope that when an Amendment is put down for the recontrol of decontrolled houses, the Minister will not be so emphatic as he was yesterday. I notice that he said:
The recontrol of that house would be a measure of frank confiscation, and the House could not for a moment contemplate that possibility."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 12th December, 1932; col. 55, Vol. 273.]
I am not so sure that it would be confiscation. Is the Minister satisfied that the
people who have bought property lately have paid a higher price than the value of the property during the War? Assuming that they have, is it not a fact that, while these houses might be confiscated if there were recontrol, have the landlords not been exploiting the tenants during the time that they have been land-lords? Surely if it is right and fair for landlords to take advantage of decontrol to exploit the tenants, it cannot be wrong for the Government to put these houses under proper control again.
The Bill makes no provision for the reduction of rents. We on these benches believe that tile time has arrived when there ought to be some reduction. During the War in every class wages went up, and, owing to the circumstances of the times, were ever-increasing week by week. The 40 per cent. that was put on rents to meet the requirements of the landlords when control came into operation, was put on at a time when the wages of the building operatives were much higher than they are to-day, and when the cost of building materials was considerably higher. On those grounds alone we are entitled to say that, even if there is not a reduction in the standard rents, or if they are not returned to the pre-war level, there is a case for considerable reduction in the 40 per cent. that is allowed to the landlord for repairs. It is a well-known fact, and every Member who has addressed the House has expressed it fearlessly, that landlords have not used the 40 per cent. for the purpose for which it was intended. Repairs have not taken place, and time and time again in our various constituencies we are getting complaints about the lack of repairs to houses. I add my plea to that, made by Members of his own party that during the Committee stage the Minister will consider some reduction.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to Clause 2, where the rate-able value of Class "C" houses is dealt with. Sub-section (1) says:
Subject as hereinafter provided, Section two of the Act of 1923 (which provides for the exclusion of dwelling-houses from the application of the principal Act in certain cases) shall not apply to any dwelling-house of which the rate-able value on the appointed day did not exceed "—
in regard to Class "C" houses, £13. Suppose the local assessment committee makes a. re-assessment, which I under-
stand some of them are contemplating, and suppose they assess one of the £13 houses at a higher rate-able value, will that take the house out of Class "C"?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): indicated dissent.

Mr. CAPE: I take it then, that after the appointed day any variation in the rate-able value will not be looked upon as any change in control or decontrol. Having got that point satisfactorily cleared up, I want to draw attention to Clause 2 (3), which says:
For the purposes of this section it shall be the duty of the council of every county borough and of every county district to make and keep a register …
I would like to know if the word "shall" means that the register is compulsory? I listened with attention to the hon. Lady the Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) last night, and she put the same point. If councils are not to be compelled to keep this register, we all know that a large number of councils will not bother to take any action. I hope that the Minister will give that point consideration during the Committee stage. I want also to draw attention to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 3. There we find that among the considerations which shall guide the court in deciding whether to grant an ejectment order are:
(a) the court has power so to do under the provisions set out in the First Schedule to this Act; or
(b) the court is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order or judgment takes effect.
Then Sub-section (2) says:
A certificate of the housing authority for the area in which the said dwelling-house is situated, certifying that the authority will provide suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant by a date specified in the certificate shall be conclusive evidence that suitable alternative accommodation will be available for him by that date.
I am very dissatisfied with large portions of the First Schedule with regard to the manner in which certain landlords can get ejectment orders. I should like to know if Sub-section (2) means that the certificate of the housing authority as there mentioned means that a certificate must be given by the housing authority
in regard to a house owned by a private landlord or only in regard to a house owned by the authority itself? Suppose a private landlord takes a tenant to court, asks for an ejectment order, and says that he will provide alternative accommodation by a specified date. Does this Sub-section mean that the housing authority in that locality will have to provide a certificate to satisfy the court that the alternative accommodation will be found, or does it mean that that will only be done in regard to a house owned by the local authority?
With regard to sub-tenancies, the hon. Member for West Willesden made a very effective contribution to the Debate. She described some harrowing scenes that had come under her notice in her locality. I think that the House generally felt the situation very acutely. I can assure the hon. Lady that her experience has been undergone by the majority of Members of the House, particularly by the Members on these benches. Throughout the length and breadth of the land, in every city and town, and in practically every village, housing scandals exist, and they are a disgrace to a civilised country. While I admired the speech of the hon. Lady and agreed with practically everything that she said, I thought that she might have finished her fine speech by describing how these things are to be obviated. The only means of obviating these terrific scandals is by providing more houses at reasonable rents for the working classes, and, as an hon. Friend reminds me, by eliminating private enterprise. I have the same fear as the hen. Member for Gorbals that instead of there being more working-class houses of the "C" class as a result. of this Bill there will be fewer, and therefore these terrific scandals which have been described to us and of which we have read in the Press will increase.
We say quite frankly, and without hesitation, that a good case can be made out for a reduction of rents. An hon. Member for one of the Sheffield divisions and the hon. Member for Gorbals have pointed out that since the departmental committee issued their report wages have steadily decreased. I myself believe that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) was the one member of that committee who took the long view in this matter. He saw that the situation as it
was presented to them at the end of 1930 and the beginning of 1931, bad as it was, would steadily grow worse. In every State Department there has been a reduction of salaries; in every industry a reduction of wages has taken place, and still further reductions are contemplated. Even in the matter of War Loans there has been a reduction of interest. That being so, it would be interesting if the Minister would tell us how he justifies the retention of the 40 per cent, increase of rents which was adopted 16 or 18 years ago. Probably he will have reasons, but up to the present we have been too dull to perceive the justification.
To make this Bill as effective as it ought to be, and acceptable with graciousness by the tenant occupiers of houses, the Minister will have to accept a considerable number of Amendments. Not only ought Class "C" houses to remain controlled, but Class "A" and Class "B" houses also, because the majority of their occupiers have suffered considerable reductions in income, and therefore are less able to pay the rent. I know there will be a fear in the mind of the Minister—not that he is afraid to face any difficult situation—that he may give offence to some of the members and supporters of his own party, that is, the landlord class. I suggest that in making any law it is not the good men one has to consider but the bad men, and that the more stringent the law is against the bad men the better it is for the good men. We may just as well be honest and admit that in this country there are good landlords as well as bad ones, and the harsher we make this Measure the better chance we shall have of getting the bad landlord to toe the line and come into conformity with his fellows. The good landlord has nothing to fear from any Act of Parliament that may be passed, and in my opinion he does not fear anything.
In view of the fact that the Bill controls the house rather than the tenant, and makes certain provisions for dealing with the difficulty of sub-tenancies— though not by any means going as far as we should like, and omitting certain things which we believe ought to have been included to make the Bill of real value to the working classes—we shall not divide against the Second Reading, but we shall certainly put down Amendments dealing not only with the points raised by the different speakers from these
benches but with other points. I cannot speak for all my colleagues, but for my own part Amendments will not be put down with any desire to wreck the Bill, but to help, if I can, to make it a Measure worthy not only of the Minister but of all the Members of the House. I shall not put down Amendments in Committee for the sake of putting down Amendments, arid not engage in criticism for the sake of criticising; my object will be to try to make the Bill much better than it is to-day. I hope that in Committee the Minister will meet our Amendments in the same spirit, so that when the Bill becomes the law of the land every Member will be able to say he is prouder of the Bill and that all have contributed to make it worthy of the House and more fitted to deal with the situation as it affects the working classes.

6.39 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The Government have nothing of which to complain with regard to the reception of this Bill. It is true that a certain element of discord has been introduced by the action of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in moving an Amendment— in a speech which, if he will allow me to say so, was a very fine Parliamentary performance—but I cannot help thinking that his Amendment is designed rather as a Vote of Censure on the Opposition Front Bench rather than as a serious attempt to destroy a Bill which, even the hon. Member himself admits, contains one great benefit for the poorest class in this country.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to say that if we could do it we would destroy the Bill. We should have put down this Amendment if the Labour party had been in office. In view of the composition of the committee on whose report this Bill is founded, we realise that there is really a Coalition to pass it. In our opinion, the Amendment is a Vote of Censure on the Bill, and on anybody who supports it, whether belonging to the Conservative party or the Labour party.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am going to deal fully with the Amendment later, but, meanwhile, I will deal with a number of suggestions—Committee points, but none the worse for that—which have been put forward. I shall not now discuss them in detail, but I think it will be convenient if I indicate
what the attitude of the Government towards some of them will be in Committee. In reply to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) said a moment ago, the Government will certainly welcome assistance from any quarter to make the Measure a workable one, as long as the main principles of the Bill are maintained. The hon. Member asked three specific questions with which I will deal at once. He asked in regard to Class "C" houses whether, if the rate-able value changed after what is called "the appointed day," that would affect the status of the house. The answer is, "No, it will not." May I, in passing, correct one little misapprehension which crept into his question The house £13 is not the only one which comes within what we call category "C." All those—all paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 2 (1) are Class "C" houses; but the point is the status of the house as a Class "C" house—will be decided by the rate-able value on the appointed day. Then the hon. Member asks whether the local authority will be obliged to keep a register in which the landlord is to register the decontrol. The answer is, "Yes." The Bill says that it shall be the duty of the local authority to keep that register, and if they fail to do it they can be ordered by the Courts to keep the register. Next he asked, with regard to alternative accommodation, whether the certificate of the local authority would apply only to accommodation provided by the local authority. Again the answer to that is, "Yes." The Clause itself says:
The certificate of the housing authorities certifying that the authority will provide suitable alternative accommodation.
That does not mean that they would necessarily have to build it. If in any way they provide the accommodation and give a certificate, that certificate will be conclusive evidence of the availability of that accommodation. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the hon. and learned Member for South Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) asked questions as to the effect of the Bill on the holding up of improvement schemes. Everybody knows that at present very desirable improvements can be held up by one or more obstructive tenants. We think that
situation is dealt with by the provisions in the Bill with regard to alternative accommodation. The local authority can provide houses. The alternative accommodation need not be actually existing, it may be prospective as long as it is available by the required date, and the certificate of the local authority that housing will be available is conclusive. On that the owner will be able to regain possession, and having regained possession he can, of course, pull down the house. Therefore, in the case where everybody is agreed and the court is satisfied that the claim is just, we get this position: It is to the interest of the landlord to improve his property. It is to the interest of the local authority to provide alternative accommodation, because presumably the improvement of the landlord's property will improve its rate-able value, and although the tenant may not wish to be compelled to move, nevertheless, as long as the court is satisfied that at least as good accommodation is provided, everybody's interests are satisfied.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Are we to understand that a council house will be deemed to be suitable accommodation if the rent of it is larger than the rent of the house that the man is paying for the house that he already occupies?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If it comes within the alternative provisions of the Clause, it will nevertheless be suitable alternative accommodation. But I remind the hon. Member that all the time there is the overriding condition that the court must be satisfied?

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: May I make one comment upon that? A certificate given under Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 makes the local authority the judge as to what is or is not suitable accommodation, because its certificate is conclusive, and therefore the court cannot inquire into the details of it, whereas in the other parts of Clause 3 undoubtedly the county court judge is the sole judge as to whether the alternative accommodation is suitable or not.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is just that sort of thing that we shall have to thresh out in Committee. While that is true of the particular Clause, nevertheless the whole procedure is governed by
the words at the beginning of Clause 3, that the court has to consider a thing to be reasonable. That is the safeguard in regard to all these provisions.
The hon. Lady the Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) raised a point in regard to overcrowding. She said that the new overcrowding provision in this Bill might be rendered useless by a landlord being induced to increase the number of sublettings, and therefore the amount of overcrowding by the 5 per cent. extra, which he gets in regard to each. So far as that is not coupled with any extortionate demands for rent, that is true. There is no provision in this Bill to deal with that. The 5 per cent. increase is not generally regarded as a bait or inducement to landlords to create subtenancies; it is regarded as the compensation of the landlord because of tenancies created by his tenants against his will. But as soon as overcrowding is coupled with the exaction of extortionate rents, there may be danger, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) and the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. J. Duncan), of collusion to that end between the landlord and the tenant. With regard to that, I answer that the Bill, coupled with the principal Act, does afford a remedy. First of all, the tenant has the right to get an apportionment of rent, and that at any rate, after the apportionment has been made, he is liable to a penalty for attempting to extort inordinate rents.
I would like to call attention to the fact, when it is said that there might be collusion between the landlord and the tenant, that if that may truly be said in any given case the landlord also may find himself liable to a penalty because the tenant is exacting extortionate rents. Hon. Members will remember that this Bill provides that it is compulsory for a tenant to inform his landlord of the rents that he is charging, and if the landlord went on allowing that to happen, it may be that he would be responsible just as much as the tenant. He would be liable for aiding and abetting the tenant to extort extravagant rents. The same thing is true in profiteering with furnished flats. There, again, under the principal Acts, there are provisions exacting penalties for profiteering in furnished lettings. I
will remind the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), who raised this point, that in addition to penalties for profiteering in furnished lettings, the person who sublets furnished runs the risk, according to a recent decision, of losing the control of the house. It has been held that the effect of subletting furnished is to take the dwelling house altogether out of the scope of the Act.

Mrs. TATE: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that a tenant can apply for an apportionment order. That point interested me very much, because it applies to the point which I raised in Clause 7 as to the setting up of the committees. Although the subtenant can apply for an apportionment order, the Inter-Departmental Committee admitted that, in the case of Mancheser houses, whereas there were 4,000 cases in which tenants might have applied for apportionment orders it was found that only 200 tenants had actually applied. If such a minute fraction of the tenants apply for apportionment orders, the provision becomes of little value.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Lady's criticisms are perfectly just. It is precisely for that reason that we are setting up powers for local authorities to give advice. It is exactly in this class of case that those powers which we are giving to the local authority will be so useful. I was just going to point out with regard to the rights of tenants of furnished lettings, where a profiteering rent is being exacted with regard to the rights of subtenants where extortionate rents are being demanded that could not possibly be justified by their proportion to the head rent, that the Advisory Committee to be set up by the local authorities can be extremely useful, also in regard to such things as the provision of alternative accommodation. They can defend the provisions of the Bill, which in themselves are perfectly good, from being rendered nugatory by the ignorance of those who are entitled to enforce them. With all respect to the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske), I do not in the least agree that the setting up of these committees will he useless. Of course, they will not act, or purport to act, as a substitute for the Court of Appeal in deciding knotty problems and fine points that arise in the construction
of the Act. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to safeguard the ignorant, and to enable them to realise what are their rights under the Act.
The hon. Lady the Member for West Willesden and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham raised a point with regard to reconditioning. They said that there was nothing in this Bill to encourage a landlord to recondition his premises, as distinct from spending money on structural alterations on the one hand or on repairs on the other. That, again, is perfectly true. It is a very difficult subject. I may say that the Government are prepared to give careful consideration to any means that can be suggested to help property owners to spend money on reconditioning. If the hon. Lady has any suggestion which she could bring forward in Committee, it certainly will receive consideration.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) asked a question in regard to alternative accommodation among agricultural houses. He asked whether the agricultural committee's certificate was conclusive. The answer to that is, that it is. The wording in the Bill is practically the same as in the former Act, and there has been a decision under that Act making the certificates conclusive. He also asked, with regard to Clause 2, Sub-section (2), whether that would apply to the obligation to register a house which had already been decontrolled, and whether it would apply in the case where the landlord himself was in occupation of the house. That Sub-section does not apply, except where the house is let at the time of the passing of the Act. Technical difficulties, into which I do -not intend to go at the present time, in the way of dealing with anything but the case of existing tenancies, has made it necessary to lay down this provision only in regard to houses which, at the moment when the Act comes into force, are actually let.
The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) asked why were we giving the Minister power to prescribe the form instead of putting the form into the Schedule to the Bill. The answer to that is that once before, Parliament put the only form which I think has hitherto been prescribed, into the Schedule to an earlier Act, and everybody knows what
the result was. The whole system, as it happened, went wrong. There was litigation that went to the House of Lords, and it became necessary to pass an amending Bill and to make it retrospective. In the circumstances we think that it would be better to allow the Minister to correct any mistakes which appear in the form. The hon. Member for Chippenham asked a very important question in regard to the rights of "C" class tenants, where the "C" dwelling house is contained within either an "A" or a "B" house. Several hon. Members have asked questions upon this point in one form or another. May 'therefore say what is intended to be brought about, and what I think is brought about, by the Bill? If there is a "C" house within either an "A" or a "B" house, the existing "C" tenant, as long as he stays there, is protected. If the "C" tenant gives up his tenancy, there is a difference, according as the house is or is not decontrolled. The Bill decontrols all "A" houses. Therefore, if the "C" tenant in an "A" house gives up, the "C" house becomes decontrolled with the rest of the house; similarly if the "C" house is part of a "B" house which has already been decontrolled. But if it is part of a "B" house which is still controlled, the giving up by the subtenant does not, as under the existing law, effect decontrol. The house stays exactly as it was.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Suppose there is a "B" house of which the landlord has got every part except the "C" dwelling, which is within the "B" house; directly the tenant of the "C" dwelling goes out, the landlord of the "B" house would then be in control of the whole house. Would not that bring about decontrol?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, I admit that it would. If the original tenant is no longer there, the landlord and the subtenant are in direct relationship.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: Is it not, therefore, the fact that the pool which it is the object and intention of the Bill to maintain with regard to just over 4,000,000 houses, will, by the arrangement of the Clause which the Solicitor-General is now discussing, gradually be decreased?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I want to make it quite clear that this particular
element of decontrol applies only to a very limited class of case, and it can apply only where a "C" house has been effected by the tenant of the house subletting, without the will of the landlord. Only within that limited area can this particular point arise at all.

Mr. JANNER: Is it true to say that it is not only in the case where a subtenancy has arisen against the will of the landlord, but also in the case which has arisen with the consent of the landlord— a subtenancy created with the consent of the landlord. Is it not true that that will affect a large number of dwelling-houses in Class "C"?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not want to pin myself to the words "against the consent of the landlord." Let me say the subtenancy has been created by the tenant and not by the landlord. I cannot attempt to cover the whole of the various questions which have been raised. Let me now pass from these points to the Amendment.

Mr. CAPORN: May I ask whether in regard to reconditioning the Solicitor-General has considered Section 2 of the Act of 1920 which allows a percentage? Will it still apply?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: Of course that applies if I have got the right Section in mind, but that is not reconditioning in the way we were discussing it—that section refers to structural alterations. The type of reconditioning we were discussing is where there have been put in internal improvements such as bathrooms and sinks, not covered by that particular percentage, and not repairs in the ordinary sense of the word.
Now I come to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gorbals. He moved the rejection of this Bill on three grounds which I propose, if I may, to deal with in the reverse order from that in which they appear on the Order Paper. He says that this Bill proposes to decontrol certain classes of houses which are at present under control. He says it fails to restore control to houses which are already decontrolled, and that it makes no provision for the reduction of rents of working-class houses. May I just recall to the House what are the classes of houses which are dealt with
by this Bill? I am dealing with that part of the Amendment which objects to the Bill because it decontrols certain houses at present under control. There are about 6,000,000 houses still under control, and these have been divided into three categories by the committee. I have listened attentively throughout the Debate, and I do not remember any Member objecting to this classification into these three classes of houses.
Now take the "C" class first. That represents more than two-thirds of the houses at present under control. With regard to these it is not merely proposed to maintain the existing control, but it is proposed to forbid any form of decontrol for the next five years. And yet the hon. Member for Bridgeton, when seconding the Amendment, said there was nothing in the Bill which was of any benefit to the vast majority of the working classes.

Mr. MAXTON: It is only maintaining the status quo.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not only the status quo. That is just where the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The status quo is that these houses are now controlled, and may become decontrolled at any moment by vacant possession. What we are introducing is that they should remain controlled for five years, and how the change we are making can be said to be of no benefit to the working classes passes my comprehension. With regard to the next category "B" the existing law will apply, and that represents about one-fifth of the whole of the houses under control. It is only in Class "A," which represents about one-twelfth of the houses under control, that we are enacting that the Rent Restrictions Acts shall cease to apply. Will hon. Members be good enough to note that houses in that class are of a rate-able value in London of £45 and in the provinces £35? But in rental value they represent, in London, houses rented from 28s. to 36s. and in the country from 22s. to 27s. I invite hon. Members to consider whether it can justly be argued that there is any real shortage of that class of house.
Now let us see for a moment what are the reasons for distinguishing between these three classes of houses. Let it always be remembered that the restrictions im-
posed by the Rent Restrictions Acts are an artificial interference with the ordinary law of the landlord and tenant. Let us also remember that these Acts do not apply at all to any house built since 1919, nor to any old houses which have been decontrolled—and decontrol has been in force for the last nine years. With these considerations in mind, there ought to be two factors which, plainly, must be taken into consideration when you are considering what you are to do with any class of house. With regard to each class, surely it must be right in the first place to say, What is the comparison between the number of houses in that class which still remain controlled and the number which have either become decontrolled or have been newly built since 1919? There is no justification for prolonging control in a minority of cases. As the committee truly pointed out, if you continue control for the benefit of the minority you are injuring the majority of the tenants of houses in that category because, by restricting supply of that kind of house in the open market, you are artificially raising the prices.
The second factor must be this: You want to compare the rate at Which the new building is overtaking the decontrol of houses in any class, because if the new building is equal to, or in excess of, the number of houses which are being decontrolled there is, at any rate, reasonably plain evidence that private enterprise is filling the gap in that particular class, and there is no likelihood of the exaction of scarcity rents. If these are the right factors to take into account, may I recall how the matter stands with regard to the three categories? In Class "A" houses the decontrolled houses, and the new, exceed the number of houses left under control by about 50 per cent. and, at the same time, the new houses which have been built considerably exceed the number of houses which have been decontrolled. In Class "B" it is true that the number of houses which have been decontrolled, and the new houses, are slightly less in number than those which remain controlled. On the other hand, the new houses in that category exceed the number of houses decontrolled by three and one-third times. Now contrast these two positions with that which prevails in "C" houses. In that class the number of houses which still remain controlled exceeds by con-
siderably more than twice the number of houses decontrolled and the new houses; and not only so, but the number of new houses built is less than those which have been decontrolled.
Now, surely, in these circumstances there is a plain case to justify the Government tightening up restrictions in Class "C"; for taking them off altogether in Class "A" and leaving Class "B" as it is. That is what this Bill proposes. So much for the first ground on which the rejection of this Bill is moved. Then the hon. Member says that we have failed to restore control to houses which already have been decontrolled. May I point out that the hon. Member himself recognises that there is no conceivable justification for treating the house which has become decontrolled differently from the house which has been newly built. If, under the law which Parliament passed nine years ago, people have got back control of their houses on the faith of what Parliament has done, there is no more justification for changing their position than there is for changing the position of the man who has built a new house on the faith of Parliament having said that there will not be control of new houses. The two things are, to all intents and purposes, exactly the same. Whether you interfere with the one, or the other, or both, it must be obvious to all hon. Members that you would shatter at once the confidence of the building trade, and this retrospective legislation would have a most devastating effect. It would destroy for all time any hope of solving this problem by private enterprise. It would, in effect, be a most glaring piece of retrospective legislation. It would not even penalise those who have had the benefit of decontrol because, as has been pointed out, on the faith of the decontrol provisions which have been in operation now for nine years, property has changed hands and, because of decontrol, the value has to some extent been enhanced. It is the people who have paid the price, and not those who have received it who would be penalised by restrictive legislation. Estate Duty has also been levied by the Government on decontrolled property the value of which has gone up. All this is recognised quite plainly by the committee in their report. It is also recognised, and dealt with, in the Minority Report to which the hon. Member for Gorbals paid such close
adherence. There it is dealt with in one sentence, which I propose to quote. The answer suggested in the Minority Report to this argument, which I should have thought would have appealed to the sense of justice of anyone, is that:
The comparatively few who have been trading in house property and who might suffer pecuniary loss would not, I am satisfied, come within the category of the working class in its truest sense.
I understand what the working classes are, but I am not quite sure what is meant by the working classes in their truest sense. What I suspect is meant is that the working-class man—and this is one of the hardest cases with which we have to deal—who has bought a house in order that he may live in it, although he may not be able to get possession of it, has become a capitalist, and so is not a working-class man in the truest sense of the term. However that may be, I am bound to say that I hope it will be a very long time before any Measure is passed which would give effect to this argument and confiscate the property of a man as long as he is not a working-class man in the truest sense of the term. That is certainly not a principle to which the present Government are going to give effect.
I have still to deal with the last reason for which the hon. Member for Gorbals moves the rejection of the Bill. He says that the Bill makes no provision for the reduction of rents of working-class houses. I agree whole-heartedly with one thing that the hon. Member said, namely, that this is not a question of the difference between now and 18 months ago—it is a question of principle. I agree that it is a question of principle. If you take off the permitted increase of 40 per cent., or any part of it, you are going again to indulge in a glaring instance of retrospective legislation of a confiscatory kind. Again let it be remembered that, on the faith of these permitted increases, which have now been in force, I think, for 12 years, and possibly in the hope of decontrol in addition, countless sales have taken place. Let it be observed, also, that to take off the permitted increase now would hit hardest the best type of landlord—the man who has spent up to the hilt on the repairs for which he got his 25 per cent. He has spent that money in the hope of being able to recoup himself out of the
permitted increase, and it is now proposed that that permitted increase should be cut off.
That is not the only consideration. Let me remind hon. Members that this matter is being discussed in the light of the fact that we are taking the "A" houses out of the Rent Restriction Act altogether, whereas the Committee, perfectly justly, recognised that the cost of repairs in the case of the lower-class houses is much higher per house than in the case of the higher-class houses. I am not going into the details, but they made it perfectly plain that, although they agreed that, as the hon. Member for Gorbals has said, the cost of repairs had gone down, there was nothing in that fact which made the 25 per cent, for repairs excessive in the case of the Iower-class houses, so that there is really no justification on that ground for doing away with the permitted increases.
The real argument, however, which the hon. Member for Gorbals addressed to the House—and it is the argument which appears in the Minority Report—is the argument of working-class conditions generally, the condition of the unemployed, the 10 per cent. cut, the part-time employment, and the rest. These are the things which, the hon. Member said, made it impossible to go on with the permitted increases. I suggest to him that he has for the moment slipped into a confusion of thought. I have often heard him and the hon. Member for Bridgeton maintain the philosophy which is known as "work or maintenance." I have heard them maintain with great force that the working man is entitled to be employed, or that, if he is not employed, food, shelter and clothing are to be found for him. That is the argument. Yes, but they are to be found by the State. The whole resources of Supply and Ways and Means are to be brought to bear to raise, not only from people who happen to derive their income from house property, but from all the rest of the community, these benefits for those who are out of work. I have never heard the hon. Members, for example, suggest that the baker who supplies a loaf to an unemployed man is obliged to charge 40 per cent. less than the market price for it, or that the bootmaker who supplies a pair of boots to a man who is in part-
time employment is obliged to charge 20 per cent. less than the market price far those boots.

Mr. MAXTON: He would have to buy second-hand boots, because they would be cheaper.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Still less have I heard either hon. Member suggest that, because some bootmakers and some bakers supply bread and boots to unemployed people, therefore, they would be obliged to charge 40 per cent. less to all their customers. That, however, is what the hon. Member is proposing with regard to the landlord. His argument is that, because some tenants are unemployed, or only partly unemployed, therefore all landlords are to reduce their rents by 40 per cent.

Really, that will not do; hon. Members who are so persistent in urging this particular philosophy must also be consistent in its application. While, as I have said, no complaint can be made against the way in which the Bill has been received, I think it is true to say that the welcome which it has received generally from the House has been given because the Government have succeeded in steering the old ship Private Enterprise successfully between the rock of confiscation on the one hand and the whirlpool of profiteering on the other, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 326; Noes, 0.

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
[7.24 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Agnew, Lieut.-Corn. P. G.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prstmth., S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fermoy, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Christie, James Archibald
Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolln


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Atholl, Duchess of
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Atkinson, Cyrll
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Ganzoni, Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gibson, Charles Granville


Balniel, Lord
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Conant, R. J. E.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cooke, Douglas
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cooper, A. Duff
Goff, Sir Park


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.).
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gower, Sir Robert


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Craven-Ellis, William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Greene, William P. C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)


Blindell, James
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Grimston, R. V.


Borodale, Viscount
Crossley, A. C.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Bossom A. C.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Davison, sir William Henry
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hanbury, Cecil


Boyce, H. Leslie
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hartington, Marquess of


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dickle, John P.
Hartland, George A.


Briant, Frank
Donner, P. W.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Doran, Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Dunglass, Lord
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Buchan, John
Eastwood, John Francis
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hepworth, Joseph


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Burnett, John George
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Butt, Sir Alfred
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Holdsworth, Herbert


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Elmley, Viscount
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hopkinson, Austin


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G, (Burnley)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hornby, Frank


Cassels, James Dale
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Horobin, Ian M.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chlsw'k)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Hume, Sir George Hop wood
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Scone, Lord


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Moss, Captain H. J.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Iveagh, Countess of
Munro, Patrick
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thnes)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Slater, John


Jamieson, Douglas
Nation, Brigadier-General J, J. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Janner, Barnett
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Smith Carington, Neville W.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Nunn, William
Somervllle, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Ker, J. Campbell
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peat, Charles U.
Stevenson, James


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Penny, Sir George
Storey, Samuel


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Strauss, Edward A.


Knebworth, Viscount
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Law, Sir Alfred
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Pike, Cecil F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F,


Leckie, J. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lass-Jones, John
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tate, Mavis Constance


Laighton, Major B. E. P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Templeton, William P.


Levy, Thomas
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lewis, Oswald
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsden, E.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Train, John


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rea, Walter Russell
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Vaughan-Morgan, sir Kenyon


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mabane, William
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mac Andrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Remer, John R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Wells, Sydney Richard


McKie, John Hamilton
Robinson, John Roland
Weymouth, Viscount


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ropner, Colonel L.
White, Henry Graham


McLean, Major Alan
Rosbotham, S. T.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Robs, Ronald D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Rosa Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rothschild, James A. de
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R-
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)



Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Salt, Edward W.
Commander Southby and Dr.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Morris-Jones.


Milne, Charles
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



NOES.




TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-




Mr Maxton and Mr. Buchanan.


Motion made, and Question, "That this Schedule be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 1901 December.—[Sir Young.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress 6th December.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for existing bylaws, etc.)

All by-laws, rules, regulations, fares, rates, and charges made or enforceable by any undertakers whose undertaking or part of whose undertaking is transferred to the board by this Act, being by-laws, rules, regulations? fares, rates, or charges in force immediately before the appointed day, shall, so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force with respect to the undertaking or part of the undertaking to which they relate until repealed, altered, or superseded.—[Mr. Pybus.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
7.35 p.m.
This is a purely formal Clause to ensure that the existing by-laws applicable to the undertaking may continue in force and that the board shall not suffer by reason of the change of ownership.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Certain stocks of the Metropolitan Railway Company.)

(1) For the purpose of conferring upon the holders of the following stocks of the Metropolitan Railway Company (in this section referred to as the ' Metropolitan Company ') that is to say, the Three and one-half per cent. Convertible Preference Stock (in this section referred to as ' Metropolitan Convertible Stock '), and the Consolidated Stock (in this section referred to as 'Metropolitan Ordinary Stock') the conversion or exchange rights hereinafter specified, and of making provision for the creation of the new stock hereinafter mentioned, the following provisions shall have effect.

(2) Any registered holders of Metropolitan Convertible Stock may, by notice in writing (in this section referred to as ' a conversion notice ') given to and received by the Metropolitan Company not later than three months from the passing of this Act, and accompanied by the certificate of the stock to which the notice relates, require that the whole, or any portion, of the stock held by him shall be converted into Metropolitan Ordinary Stock of the same nominal amount; and, upon any such requisition being so made, the Metropolitan Convertible Stock specified in the notice shall, by virtue of this section, be converted into Metropolitan Ordinary Stock of the like nominal amount, and the Metropolitan Company shall register the holder of the stock in respect of which the notice was given as the holder of such Metropolitan Ordinary Stock; but save as aforesaid the conversion rights attached to the Metropolitan Convertible Stock shall cease to have effect.

(3) The Metropolitan Ordinary Stock resulting from any such conversion as aforesaid shall rank for dividend as from the commencement of the half-year in which the conversion notice is received, and the Metropolitan Convertible Stock so converted shall cease to rank for dividend as from the end of the half-year immediately preceding that half-year.

(4) Where the whole of the Metropolitan Convertible Stock comprised in any certificate is so converted the certificate of the stock and the conversion notice relating thereto shall (until a new certificate, if any, is issued) together be deemed to he a certificate of the amount of Metro-
politan Ordinary Stock resulting from such conversion as aforesaid.

(5) As on the appointed day there shall by virtue of this section be created a new stock to be known as Metropolitan Assented Stock (in this section referred to as ' Assented Stock ') of such nominal amount as is necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the exercise by the holders, or persons entitled to be registered as holders, of Metropolitan Ordinary Stock of the right of exchange conferred by the next succeeding sub-section.

(6) Any registered holder of Metropolitan Ordinary Stock, whether resulting from the conversion of Metropolitan Convertible Stock or not, and any person entitled to be registered as a holder of Metropolitan Ordinary Stock under sub-section (2) of this section, may by notice in writing (in this section referred to as ' a notice to exchange ') given to and received by the Metropolitan Company not later than three months from the passing of this Act, and, unless the certificate of the Metropolitan Ordinary Stock to which the notice relates has already been received by the Metropolitan Company, accompanied by such certificate, require that as from the appointed day the whole, or any portion, of the Metropolitan Ordinary Stock held by him shall be exchanged for Assented Stock of the same nominal amount; and, upon any such requisition being so made, the Metropolitan Company shall note the receipt thereof in their books and shall forthwith transmit the certificate of stock to the trustees of the trust deed hereinafter mentioned endorsed with a statement that notice of exchange in respect of that stock has been received, and such receipt by the Metropolitan Company shall, by virtue of this section, have effect as a transfer to the trustees as on the appointed day of the amount of Metropolitan Ordinary Stock specified in the notice to exchange and shall be registered in the books of the Metropolitan Company accordingly.

(7) A conversion notice or notice to exchange shall, after receipt by the Metropolitan Company, be irrevocable;

(8) As from the appointed day the Assented Stock shall confer upon the holders thereof according to the extent of their holdings the rights in this section mentioned and shall be divided among and vested without payment in the several persons who have given notices of exchange, according to the extent of their respective holdings, at the rate of one hundred pounds of Assented Stock for every one hundred pounds of Metropolitan Ordinary Stock so exchanged, and shall, as soon as practicable be registered in the books of the trustees in the respective names of the persons entitled thereto, and the trustees shall forthwith issue to those persons, free of charge, the stock certificates relating thereto;

(9) The holders of Assented Stock shall be entitled to be paid out of the moneys in the hands of the trustees available for the purpose, interest on the nominal amount of their holdings at the fixed rate of three and one-quarter per cent. per annum for a period of fifteen years from the appointed
day, and at the fixed rate of three per cent. per annum for a period of ten years thereafter;

Provided that if in any year the trustees are satisfied that the moneys in their hands applicable to the payment of interest on Assented Stock are sufficient to justify a payment being made at the end of the first six months of the year on account of the interest for that year such a payment shall he made, but no such payment shall be at a higher rate than one-half of the fixed rate for that year.

(10) The Metropolitan Company shall distribute or cause to be distributed to the trustees the amount of C Transport Stock to which the trustees are, by virtue of their holdings of the Metropolitan Ordinary Stock transferred to them as aforesaid, entitled under the Third Schedule to this Act, and the trustees shall hold the said C Transport Stock and the interest thereon and all other moneys coining into their hands in the execution of the said trusts in trust to give effect to the provisions of this section.

(11) Subject to the provisions of this section the interest received by the trustees in respect of any year on the C Transport Stock for the time being subject to the said trusts, and any other moneys paid to or received by them as trustees of the said trusts, shall he applied year by year by the trustees as follows:

(a) first, in payment of the costs of the administration of the said trusts;
(b) secondly and subject thereto, in payment of interest on the Assented Stock; and
(c) as to the balance, in distributing the same among the amalgamated railway companies in the proportions in which those companies are entitled to share in the pooled receipts of the amalgamated railway companies in respect of that year.

For the purpose of this section the costs of the administration of the said trusts shall ho deemed to include the remuneration payable to the trustees under the provisions of the trust deed and to include in the final year of the trust the cost, of dissolution thereof.

(12) If the moneys in the bonds of the trustees available for the payment of interest on the Assented Stock in respect of any year are insufficient to pay the interest on the stock at the full rate fixed in respect of that year the amalgamated railway companies, at the request of the trustees, shall, subject to the provisions of this sub-section, forthwith pay to the trustees such sum as will, when added to the moneys in the hands of the trustees and available for the purpose, be sufficient to enable payment to be thereby made by the trustees of interest on the Assented Stock at the full rate of interest fixed in respect of that year.

Provided that (a) the payments to be made by the amalgamated railway companies under this sub-section shall not in any event exceed the pooled receipts of the amalgamated railway companies; and (b) the liability of the amalgamated railway
companies under this sub-section shall cease whenever after the expiration of fifteen years from the appointed day the following condition is fulfilled (that is to say) that interest on C Transport Stock has been paid by the Board at the rate of six per cent. per annum in respect of two out of three consecutive years of which the first year shall not be earlier than the thirteenth year after the year in which the appointed day occurs.

(13) The payments which the amalgamated railway companies are liable to make under the last preceding sub-section shall by virtue of this sub-section be charged in priority to all other charges and liabilities upon the pooled receipts of the amalgamated railway companies and no charge or liability shall at any time be created ranking in priority to or pari passu with the charge created by this sub-section.

(14) If the moneys in the hands of the trustees available for the payment of the costs of the administration of the said trusts shall at any time be insufficient to pay the said costs, the amalgamated railway companies, at the request of the trustees, shall forthwith pay to the trustees such sum as will, when added to the moneys in the hands of the trustees and available for the purpose be sufficient to enable thereby payment or retention of such costs by the trustees, and the moneys shall be applied by the trustees accordingly.

(15) Any registered holder of Assented Stock may, at his option to be exercised by six months' notice to the trustees, surrender to the trustees the whole, or any part, of that stock for the time being held by him, and shall thereafter he entitled to receive in exchange from the said trustees C Transport Stock out of the Transport Stock for the time being subject to the said trusts, at the rate of sixty-seven pounds ten shillings of Transport Stock for every one hundred pounds of Assented Stock so surrendered by him; and, upon such surrender and exchange being effected, the Assented Stock so surrendered shall be cancelled.

(16) At the expiration of twenty-five years from the appointed day or upon the cessation of the liability of the amalgamated railway companies under sub-section (12) of this section (whichever shall first occur) there shall ho transferred by the trustees to the registered holders of Assented Stock C Transport Stock, out of the Transport Stock for the time being subject to the said trusts, at the rate of- sixty-seven pounds ten shillings of Transport Stock for every one hundred pounds of Assented Stock and in satisfaction thereof or, in the event of the C Transport Stock for the time being subject to the said trusts being redeemed by the board before the expiration of twenty-five years from the appointed day or such cessation as aforesaid, the trustees shall distribute the redemption moneys received by them amongst the registered holders of Assented Stock on the date when the redemption takes place according to the amounts of their respective holdings at the rate of sixty-seven pounds ten shillings for
every one hundred pounds of Assented Stock, and upon such transfer or distribution the Assented Stock shall be cancelled.

(17) Upon the fulfilment of all other purposes of the said trusts, the balance of any moneys remaining in the hands of the trustees subject to the said trusts shall be distributed amongst the amalgamated railway companies in the proportion specified in sub-section (11) of this section, and upon the completion of such transfer and distribution as aforesaid the said trusts by virtue of this section shall be dissolved.

(18) Subject to the provisions of this section Assented Stock shall be held, transferred, and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed.

(19) In the event of the amalgamated railway companies making default for a period of not less than three months in the payment of any sum payable by them to the trustees under this section the trustees may and, if so required by the holders of Assented Stock of an aggregate nominal value of not less than ten thousand pounds, shall apply to the High Court for the appointment of a receiver of the pooled receipts of the amalgamated railway companies;

(20) Where by virtue of this section or in pursuance of any option conferred by this section any Metropolitan Convertible Stock is converted into Metropolitan Ordinary Stock, or any Assented Stock is taken in exchange for Metropolitan Ordinary Stock by a holder of that stock, or any Transport Stock is taken by a holder of Assented Stock in exchange for or in satisfaction of that stock, or any redemption moneys are received by a holder of Assented Stock in satisfaction thereof, the provisions of section eight-six of this Act shall apply to the stock resulting from such conversion or so taken in exchange or satisfaction and the redemption moneys so received in satisfaction of Assented Stock and to the trustees, executors, and all other holders in any representative or fiduciary capacity of any stock so converted or for which the stock taken in exchange is exchanged or of any stock in satisfaction whereof such Transport Stock or moneys are taken or received, as fully and effectually as if in that section the expression "existing stock" included the stock so converted, exchanged, or satisfied, and as if in that section the expression "Transport Stock issued in substitution" included Metropolitan Ordinary Stock resulting from such conversion and Transport Stock or Assented Stock so taken in exchange or satisfaction or moneys so received in satisfaction.

(21) The trust deed hereinbefore referred to shall he executed between the Metropolitan Company of the first part and such other persons as may be agreed between the Metropolitan Company and the amalgamated railway companies, or, in default of agreement as may be appointed by the Minister, as trustees of the second part, and each of the amalgamated railway companies of the other parts, and shall contain such trusts, terms, and conditions as may
be necessary or expedient, having regard to the provisions of this section and such other terms and conditions of a like nature to the terms and conditions relating to the administration of the trust which are contained in the trust deed which is referred to as the old trust deed in Part III of the Second Schedule to this Act as are not inconsistent with the provisions of this section.

(22) In the event of any dispute between the parties to the trust deed as to the trusts, terms, and conditions to be inserted therein the question in dispute shall be referred to the arbitration tribunal, whose decision shall be final and conclusive.

(23) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively:—
The said trusts" means the trusts to give effect to the provisions of this section;
The pooled receipts of the Amalgamated Railway Companies" means so much of the pooled receipts as those companies are entitled to retain or receive under the pooling scheme;
The trustees" means the persons for the time being acting as trustees for the purposes of this section and of the trust deed.—[Mr. Pybus.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is merely to provide machinery to implement the arrangement between the Metropolitan and the amalgamated railways which forms part of the settlement. The Clause contains the necessary authority and machinery to secure the setting up of a trust through whom guaranteed returns will be secured to those holders of Metropolitan Ordinary Stock who elect to exchange into Assented Stock. The settlement has been published in a White Paper in July, and the present Clause, although its provisions are unavoidably somewhat complicated, merely provides for the putting of the White Paper into operation.

7.37 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I protest against the proposal to add this new Clause, and I invite the Committee to reject it. It must of necessity greatly change the financial proposals as submitted in the Bill printed less than a month ago. If there is now a necessity for this Clause to be added, that necessity must have been equally cogent when the House was invited last Session, by the carrying over of the Bill into the new Session, to regard it as having passed its Second
Reading, without discussion, as is usual on such an important matter. I cannot understand why, if the Clause was considered unnecessary last July, the Government should now suddenly realise that it, is necessary to insert it. Why it could not have been put in then I do not know, nor have we had any information from the Minister on the point. It is not, in the ordinarily accepted sense, an amending Clause. It introduces what appears to me an entirely new financial obligation which the Minister apparently had not contemplated when he had the Bill printed last Session. It is not mentioned in any of the Schedules, and particularly in the Second Schedule, in which I consider that it should have appeared. That Schedule purports to show the issue of transport stock to the companies owning the Underground undertakings and the distribution of that stock, and in Part II of the Schedule the original stock is detailed together with the substituteded stock in the new undertaking.
Although 11 different types of stock are scheduled in Part I, the stock mentioned in the new Clause does not appear, nor is mention made of any further liability, which is now for the first time introduced into the Measure itself. Nor can it be said that the Clause is of more than very slight importance. In an Amendment later to be considered the Committee will be asked to give its sanction to alterations to Part I of the Schedule empowering an additional liability of £2,580,000, of which the Metropolitan undertaking will receive an addition of £1,800,000. Under a further Amendment to be proposed by the Minister appears an item, again a new liability, of no less than £18,894,073. In this new Clause we are apparently dealing with certain stock new to the Bill as printed, a fresh guarantee of a preferential interest to the stockholders concerned. It is on broad lines of principle that I wish to protest against the method that is adopted. We are asked to give our sanction and approval, and we have the right to ask why it has been found necessary to place such a responsibility on our shoulders in a matter on which we have had so very little notice and so very little comment from the Minister.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Here we have a Clause of well over 200 lines. It brings in the great railway companies that bitterly opposed the Bill before. In other words, it includes what might be described in other circumstances as a bribe to the railway companies. No one can pretend for a moment that it does not completely change the whole financial provisions under the Bill. It would be a physical and mental impossibility for the Minister, however able he may be, to explain it in two or three minutes. It makes the position of the Bill different from what it ever was in any previous circumstances, and it completely justifies many of us in thinking that the Bill should have proceeded in a proper way in this new Parliament and that this Clause should have been gone into carefully by the only body that could do so, that is a small committee upstairs. That is all that I am going to say on it, because, the more quickly it is passed, the more complete is the scandal.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 90 of 20 and 21 Geo. V., c. 43.)

Section ninety of the Act of 1930 shall have effect as if the following new subsection were inserted after Sub-section (10):
(11) The power of making orders conferred upon local authorities by Subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised within the London Traffic Area as defined by the London Traffic Act, 1924."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
7.45 p.m.
The Clause is merely for the purpose of re-introducing in a more appropriate place paragraph (b) of Subsection (7) of Clause 50 which was omitted during an earlier period in the Debate. Section 90 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, gave powers to local authorities to fix stopping places for public service vehicles. In Section 99 of that Act those local authorities are excluded from making those orders in the police district of the Metropolis, and this Clause settles the point and extends the
position as to the fixing of those stopping points under the Road Traffic Act to the London passenger transport area.

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I ask in whose hands they are to be put?

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Transfer of powers of Railway and Canal Commission, etc.)

(1) Any existing functions of or powers exercisable by the Railway and Canal Commission shall, in so far as they are exercisable by the rates tribunal by virtue of this Act, cease to he the functions of or powers exercisable by that Commission.

(2) The provisions set out in the Seventh Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the exercise by the rates tribunal of the functions and powers conferred on that tribunal by this Act.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
7.47 p.m.
The Clause deals with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). The Railway Rates Tribunal has already, by Amendments made to the Bill, been given jurisdiction over facilities. The first Sub-section of the proposed new Clause is to prevent the duplication of jurisdiction which would follow from the Railway and Canal Commission being left with their powers unimpaired. We prevent that duplication by the first Sub-section transferring the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission to the Railway Rates Tribunal. Sub-section (2) is merely a reproduction in this place of a Sub-section which originally appeared in the Bill in Clauses 29 and 34. We made Amendments taking it out of those Clauses, and it appears here, so that the second Sub-section is merely a question of redrafting.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Proof of signed map.)

The signed map referred to in Part of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be for all purposes conclusive evidence of the extent of the London Passenger Transport Area and of the roads referred to in the said Schedule, and shall for the purposes of
the Documentary Evidence Acts, 1868 to 1895, be deemed to be a document issued by the Minister.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is necessary to provide machinery for proving the extent of the London passenger transport area. We have taken as a model for setting up that machinery the provision to be found in the Land Drainage Act, 1930. The result of the new Clause will be that a copy of the signed map certified by the Minister, or by a representative of the Minister, or by the Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, will be prima facie evidence of the extent of the area.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Right of inhabitants to require reduction of fares and improvement of services.)

(1) If at any time after the appointed day it is represented in writing to the Minister by twenty inhabitant ratepayers of any district served by any of the road services or railway services of the Board that, in the circumstances then existing, all or any of the fares or other charges demanded and taken for the services of the Board to or from that district should lie reduced or that the services should be improved or increased, the Minister shall direct an inquiry by three referees to be appointed by him in accordance with the provisions of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, of whom not less than one shall be a member of the London and Rome Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; and if the referees report that it has been proved to their satisfaction that all or any of the fares or charges should he reduced or that the services should be improved or increased, the Minister shall, by order in writing, require the Board to reduce the fares or charges or to improve or increase the services accordingly and the Board shall comply with the order under a penalty of fifty pounds for every day on which they omit or neglect to comply with the order.

(2) Where the Minister causes any such inquiry as aforesaid to be held all expenses incurred by the Ministry in relation to that inquiry shall be paid by the Board, and the Minister may certify the amount of the expenses so incurred, and any sum so certified shall be a debt due to the Crown.— [K. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
7.49 p.m.
The purpose of the Amendment, which stands in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson), is to provide an easier and readier means of appeal from the travelling public in the London passenger transport area than is provided by the existing machinery in the Bill. Hon. Members will be aware that under Clauses 29 and 30 an appeal lies only, from the local authority, and, in the first instance, by the local authority to the Minister, and then to the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee for a report, and thereafter to the Railway Rates Tribunal, who may make an order. The procedure is long and complicated, and I hold the view that, having regard to the great importance of the provisions of the Bill, to their complicated character, and to the fact that it will take all of us a good long time to master all its details, and, further, to the fact that for the first time it is sought to erect this elaborate, comprehensive and autocratic monopoly for the whole of the transport system in the area, it is of the first importance that the travelling public, apart from the local authorities, should have an easier means of securing redress if they have grievances demanding action.
Having expressed the reason why I consider the machinery of Clauses 29 and 30 insufficient for the purpose, I have endeavoured to provide machinery which might either be supplemental to, or take the place of, that which is provided in the Bill. I think that the Minister will hardly deny that there is a need for some such simple procedure as is suggested. The amending Clause, as I have drafted it, very likely contains certain defects, but, if the Minister and the Government will accept in principle what I desire to lay down, namely, the necessity of providing an easier and inexpensive form of appeal from the aggrieved travelling public, I should be prepared to accept seine modification of its terms, or an assurance that in principle my proposal will be favourably considered. In the circumstances, I shall be content to leave it at that, if the Government will accept in principle the need which I have demonstrated for providing the means of access of a small number of the travelling public, and not confine the whole procedure of the Bill to that laid down in
Clauses 29 and 30 limiting it to action by a local authority. There are obvious difficulties in having to move a local authority to take the necessary procedure in a matter of this kind. They may regard complaints as not sufficiently important or as not coming properly within their sphere of action. There is an historical parallel for the machinery which I suggest. It exists in the machinery based on the Tramway Acts and is part of the law now applicable to the London United Tramways. It is already an existing statute. It is simple, inexpensive, ready and convenient.

7.54 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: I have not previously intervened in the Debate on this Bill, but I do so on this occasion, and I support my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan), because I think it is essential that there should be some safeguard of this kind in the Bill. The Bill, as everybody acknowledges, creates a monopoly. It may be a necessary monopoly, but, if it creates a monopoly, the travelling public, who are the people who will be particularly concerned with the operation of the Bill should have some safeguard against abuse by that monopoly. I represent a constituency in Essex, and the London passenger transport area cuts right across my constituency, and a considerable number of the people living in outlying areas around London who come up to London every day for their daily business and to earn their daily bread are vitally affected by the Bill. There is no doubt that, if there is a falling off in services or if there is an increase of fares, they are the people who will primarily be affected by it. For that reason, I think that it is necessary that one should voice their fears in this particular respect.
My hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out that the new Clause may be defective. Since we put it down upon the Paper we have observed one defect in it which the Minister himself possibly has also observed. Charging the expenses of any inquiry to the board might lead to frivolous complaints. We see no objection—and I am sure that the Minister will see no objection—to safeguarding that position by ensuring that there shall be no public charge for the inquiry unless the case is proved. That will prevent any
frivolous inquiry. It is obvious that you must have some safeguard to prevent frivolous inquiries. He might think that the number inserted in the proposed new Clause as being entitled to make an appeal is not sufficiently high. We do not hold any particularly strong views upon that subject, but we hold strong views upon the principle underlying this matter. The travelling public should have some safeguard against abuse by the monopoly of their powers. After all, they are providing the monopoly with their sinews of war, and, therefore, for that reason alone, they are entitled to some consideration. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the Amendment, will try and consider whether he cannot meet us in principle if he is unable to meet us in detail.

7.57 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Anybody can appreciate the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friends that there should be proper opportunity for securing consideration by the appropriate tribunal of the questions of rates, fares and facilities. I think that my hon. Friend who moved the Clause is under a misapprehension as to what he described as the cumbrousness of the procedure provided for by the Bill. The application by the local authority, which may be made under Clause 29 of the Bill, is not an application to the Minister, who then passes it on to the Railway Rates Tribunal, but it is an application which may be made by the local authority direct to the Railway Rates Tribunal. I should have thought, if you compare the two procedures—that is to say, the procedure in Clause 29 of the Bill as drafted, and the procedure in the new Clause of my hon. Friend—that on the whole the proposals in the Bill are much less cumbrous than his proposal. Let us contrast them. Under the Bill the proposal is, as Clause 29 stands, that the local authority may make an application or a representation to the Railway Rates Tribunal, who thereupon immediately consider the question which has been raised, and they make an order amending the rates or fares. The whole matter is considered by a body which is very familiar with the questions. They are likely to decide them with much more facility and speed than a tribunal which comes freshly to the task, and they are probably dealing with a matter which
they have already had before them on one or more occasions as the Act continues to be put into operation.
Take the suggestion of my hon. Friend. His proposal is that inhabitant ratepayers of any district may make a representation, first of all, to the Minister, then the Minister has to direct an inquiry by three referees appointed by him under the Ministry of Transport Act. The three referees, who are not a constantly sitting tribunal like the Railway Rates Tribunal, have to take the matters into their consideration. They then make a report and the Minister is then, as I understand the proposal, a mere agent for carrying out the report of the three referees who are specially appointed to consider the question. Thereupon, an order in accordance with the three referees is made and the costs of the inquiry are to be paid by the Board to the Minister upon his certificate.
I submit that the Committee will have no hesitation in feeling that the procedure under my hon. Friend's Clause is very much more cumbrous. It includes at least one important subject more than the procedure under Clause 29. It really comes down to this question, whether it is sufficient to leave the local authorities in possession of the powers to make representations as to amendment of the rates and fares. Local authorities include practically every authority that one could think of—the Common Council of the City of London, any Metropolitan borough council, any county borough council, any county council and any urban district council or rural district council—so that you have the widest possible range of bodies who may interest themselves in this question if they think there is sufficient local feeling to justify their action. I do not know why we should not leave local authorities to be put into action by the local inhabitants if they think there is a sufficient body of feeling to justify it. Even one who is sym. pathetic with my hon. Friend would, I think, prefer the plan in the Bill.
There is this additional objection to my hon. Friend's proposals, that the Bill does contain the Clauses to which I have referred, Clause 29 and the two Clauses following it, and Clause 105 defining the local authorities. If the proposed new Clause were to be accepted, it would result in a duplication of machinery for
considering this question, and you might very likely have the Railway Rates Tribunal making an order which was inconsistent and unworkable side by side with an order made by the Minister as a result of the report of the three referees. I cannot think it would conduce to convenience or efficiency if we had two schemes which covered the same ground and only differed in respect of the persons or authority that put the appropriate body into action. For these reasons I feel bound, in spite of my natural anxiety to do something to please my hon. Friends, to resist their proposal.

8.3 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I ask whether I read Clause 30, Sub-section 2, correctly?
where any such representation is made to the Minister ho shall refer the matter for consideration and report to the Advisory Committee.
I think the learned Attorney-General thought that was to come out.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That Sub-section has been omitted by an Amendment we have made already.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I apologise for not having my copy of the Bill up-to-date. May I ask the Attorney-General whether he would have any objection to the body of resident ratepayers being put on the same footing, if he prefers the altered machinery in the Bill to my proposal, as a local authority, and bring them within the machinery of Clause 29 as amended? Admittedly he has made a case against the particular machinery as proposed in the Clause, and I think the case is good against my alternative proposals, but cannot he go so far as to meet it to this extent as to put a body of the travelling public on the same footing as the local authority?

8.5 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should have thought that undesirable from my hon. Friend's point of view. If a local authority realises it has the duty of looking after the interests of those among the travelling public who are its constituents, they are likely to take action in a proper case. If there is an alternative method of stirring up the Rates Tribunal by the action of 20 inhabitants, I should think the local authority is likely to say, "We have plenty to do; let the 20 inhabitants do their own work. They can set the ball
rolling." I should have thought it better, from my hon. Friend's point of view, to let the local authority realise this.

8.6 p.m.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not think the learned Attorney-General has quite recognised the grievance of the travelling public in an area outside London, for instance, where the local authority might not necessarily be at all conversant with the matter. Many members of the authority quite possibly would be local people who never travelled up and down at all.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I am authorised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) to say that, in view of the undertaking given by the Attorney-General earlier in the proceedings, he does not move his proposed new Clause— (Establishment of joint committee of board and staff).

NEW CLAUSE.—(Public Authorities Protection Act.)

The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1895, shall not apply to the board constituted by this Act.—[Mr. Atkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
8.7 p.m.
The object of this Clause is very simple. The Act cited provides two things—that any action against a public authority shall be brought within six months, and also that if in any action brought against a public authority the plaintiff fails, the costs which he shall pay shall be costs as between solicitor and client. As probably most hon. Members of the Committee know, the ordinary plaintiff in an action only pays costs as between party and party, the costs are taxed and the Master allows only those costs which he thinks are properly and necessarily incurred. There is a more extravagant scale, and that is the costs for which a client is liable to his own solicitor. If he chooses to have matters conducted more extravagantly than is strictly necessary, that scale of taxation is much more severe. Obviously the great number of claims likely to arise under this Bill will be for personal injury. You cannot con-
trol a huge transport organisation of this kind without such claims arising. Unless the operation of that Act is excluded from this Bill, it means that no one will be able to claim damages unless he brings an action within six months. Very often the injured person is wholly unable even to think about proceedings for a much longer period than that. When you have been knocked down by a motor omnibus, frequently you are in hospital for some months and unable to contemplate proceedings. Therefore, there will be a number of hard cases where people will have found their time has gone by because their writ has not been issued within six months from the time of the occurrence, That seems to me a very unfair position in which to put people who are injured by the negligence of those who are in control of omnibuses, trams, trains or whatever it may be.
That is one reason why, I submit, we ought to insert a Clause excluding the operation of that Act. The other reason is the question of costs. Why should a person who brings an action against the board, and who fails, be under an obligation to pay not the ordinary costs but the extravagant scale taxed as between Solicitor and client? When that Act was passed no one contemplated it applying to matters of this sort. The matters then contemplated were cases in which there might have been very good reason for wishing to discourage claims against local authorities. Here the first object ought to be to secure justice for people who may be injured by the carelessness of those employed by the board, and difficulties ought not to be put in the way of injured people getting compensation to which they are entitled. I do press the Government to accept this Clause, not only in the interest of justice and to help to secure reasonable opportunities for injured persons getting compensation, but also so as not to impose such heavy liabilities on them in the matter of costs. It would be a strange anomaly if, when you wanted to bring an action against some railway company operating outside London, that you should have six years in which to bring an action, but that if you want to bring it against one of the railways covered by this Bill or in respect of an omnibus operating in London, that you should have to bring it within six months. It does not seem
reasonable, and I hope the new Clause will be accepted.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I rise to support the proposed new Clause. I would like to remind the Committee that it not in- frequently happens that relatives of people who are fatally injured in traffic accidents have to recover from the shock of the breadwinner being killed, that they have to raise funds in order to bring proceedings, and may not have been able to get their solicitor's advice and their position regularised in order to bring the proceedings within six months. The result is that, although the breadwinner may have been killed, none the less the answer that the six months' period has gone by is a complete answer, and the relatives would not be entitled to recover any relief at all. Furthermore, it sometimes happens that when people are injured they do not appreciate the extent to which they are injured. Sometimes they think it is only a small injury and they need not prosecute any claim, but, after a lapse of time, the injury is found to have been far more serious, and then they find they have let the six months go by and are precluded by the Public Authorities Protection Act from bringing proceedings. There is a third alternative that frequently occurs—the case of a person who happens, unfortunately, to he one of many people who have been injured in an accident, and who waits to see the result of the one question that has to be decided, namely, whether there was negligence or not, in a particular action before deciding whether to launch his proceedings. If this Clause is not included in the Bill, these unfortunate people will be driven to issue a writ within the six months, and will then have to wait for a trial of the main action in which the same question will have to be decided in their own case. For these three reasons, I submit that there should be no question about this Clause being put in.
From the logical point of view, I believe I am right in saying that this is the first occasion upon which a Statute of limitations, because that is what the Public Authorities Protection Act is, is going to be dependent upon a geographical limit, and not on any other legal grounds. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that this Act was passed for the
purpose of preventing stale claims. It was not passed for anything of the kind. The reason why it was passed was that in various Acts of Parliament—I speak subject. to correction—Acts dating from the time of Queen Elizabeth, various exemptions had been made, and the object of the Act was to codify them in one Statute. It was never intended for one moment to limit the right of a person who, rightly or wrongly, considered that he had a cause of action, and to penalise him in his having to bring his action within six months.
A very famous judge, now deceased, pointed out that this Act was an Act which was penal in its operation and an Act which placed the people who were protected by it in a privileged position. These are not the days when we should extend privileges, and especially to extend privileges for the benefit of, if I may use the term, a large hydra-headed body like the London Traffic Board, at the expense of the unfortunate people who have to use the streets and are frequently injured as a result of the negligence of drivers. The majority of people who are injured and bring these actions are in humble walks of life. Very often the result of the accident is that they have not the money with which to bring the litigation, and they have to save up in order to issue the proceedings. The Public Authorities Protection Act will have the effect of protecting this big traffic body which is carrying on its work, at the expense of small people who may not have the money to bring proceedings. In these circumstances, I support the new Clause.

8.18 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friends have advanced many excellent reasons for objecting to the Public Authorities Protection Act. They call it a Statute of limitations. The hon. And learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) says that he has never known a case where a Statute of limitations has been applied by reference to a geographical limit. Perhaps he has forgotten the case of the Port of London Authority, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and one or two other authorities which might be cited as practically on all-fours with this proposed Traffic Board. The two hon. and learned Members attack the Act on the ground that
it is a Statute that has the effect of preventing poor people from making their claims in accordance with the rights that they would otherwise possess; a right otherwise up to a period of six years. The object of the Public Authorities Protection Act was really to prevent stale claims being made against public authorities in circumstances in which investigation was impossible.

Mr. THORP: With respect, I would point out that Lord Justice Farwell said that that was not the object of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: With all deference to the great authority of Lord Justice Farwell, I think that, on the whole, I probably have more experience of the cases with which my hon. and learned Friends are proposing to deal than even Lord Justice Farwell, who was a Judge in the Chancery Division. The Public Authorities Protection Act was passed in 1893. Hon. Members will remember what party was in power then. The object was not to interfere with the rights of people, but it was intended to provide a proper opportunity for a person to bring his action against a public authority but not to allow him to do what in practice was found to be inconvenient and embarrassing, namely, to bring his action a year or two perhaps after the events had happened. I agree that the argument seems a good one on the face of it that you may have a person suffering from concussion who is not in a position to bring his mind back, in time, to the circumstances of the accident, in order to recover damages at law; but the answer to the objection seems to be that the Act in practice has not produced the unfortunate circumstances which any hon. and learned Friends have described. I was expecting one or other of them, from their great experience, to tell the Committee of cases which have happened within their own experience where the unfortunate results which they described have followed.
This Act applies to a large number of authorities somewhat like the London Transport Board, except to this extent that their area of operations is not so large as the area of the London Traffic Board will be. For instance, many of the public authorities' tramways that will be amalgamated in the Traffic Board are now enjoying the protection, such as it
is, of the Public Authorities Protection Act. It has been in force ever since those tramways were set up by the local authorities. There are local authorities all over the Kingdom enjoying the protection of the Public Authorities Protection Act. It is an old practice in the north of England in particular, as well as in the south, for great corporations to run tramways and omnibuses, and every one of them has enjoyed the protection of the Public Authorities Protection Act. Those corporations are very sensitive to the appeals of what may be described as the industrial classes, and if in practice it had been found that there was an interference with the real rights of the people who were injured by the running of omnibuses and trams, I should have expected some outcry, some protest or some citation of judgments brought to the attention of the Committee to-night.
I have no very strong view about this particular Act, but, on the whole, my experience shows that it has worked well, without any harshness to the people affected by it, and it does prevent those speculative and stale claims which everybody knows are one of the minor evils associated with accidents on our roads. It has not in practice been found to be oppressive. Parliament enacted it in 1893 and not in 1895, as appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. THORP: That is a misprint.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not suggesting that my hon. and learned Friend was not aware of the date. I was only saying that it appears on the Order Paper as 1895. When it enacted the Statute, Parliament presumably intended that it should apply to all public authorities. If this Committee is to say that it is not to apply to this Bill, I should not feel that any great injury has been done to it. I am very much in the hands of the Committee, but I am bound to say that I have not heard from my hon. and learned Friends any convincing reasons why that which Parliament enacted in 1893 should not be applied to this particular local authority. If this new Clause is read a, Second time and added to the Bill it will mean that the London Transport Board will be an exception to the general rule, and I think from the lawyers' point of view that it is
undesirable to make such an exception to general legislation unless there is some very convincing reason why you should do so. For these reasons, I suggest that the Clause should not be read a Second time, and that the Public Authorities Protection Act should apply to this board as it does to every other public authority with which I am acquainted.

Mr. ATKINSON: Does the learned Attorney-General defend the provision as to costs?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would be almost impertinent for me to profess either to defend or to protest against something which has been on the Statute Book for 38 to 40 years. It is no good my hon. and learned Friend shaking his head. It has been on the Statute Book since 1893, and omnibuses and trams have been running for the greater part of that period. I am asked to defend the provision about solicitors' and client costs, but that does not apply to any action in which the plaintiff succeeds, and in nine cases out of ten the plaintiff does succeed in running-down cases. If a speculative action is brought against the public authority, it is in the public interest that there should be some deterrent to prevent people who are interested in these actions from trying to get something to which they are not properly entitled.

8.26 p.m.

Captain FRASER: In these times, whether we like it or not, there is a tendency for these great monopolistic enterprises to be brought into being. The State and the municipalities more and more are taking part in our daily affairs and conducting monopolistic enterprises for the citizens. The State has always had a privileged position in relation to the citizen, and it has been extremely difficult for the citizen to get his rights. All down the pages of history we see the citizens seeking to reduce these privileges. It is in the minds of all Members of this Committee that the citizen has a very poor chance against the State in Income Tax matters, and there are scores of other examples that could be given where the privilege retained by the State is to the citizen's disadvantage. If it is a tendency of modern times for the State and the local authorities and new authorities of this kind to interfere more and
more in the private life of the citizen, and to take charge of his affairs and business, surely we ought at some stage to put a stop to the special privileges which these governmental and local authority monopolies enjoy.
It seems to me that the new Clause is a reasonable one. What reason can there be why a privately-owned company should be sued after six months while this organisation, because it happens to be controlled by a board though still privately owned, should be free and have a particular privilege? This is a very queer kind of public authority. It is privately owned; it is merely publicly controlled. When the citizens set up something which they themselves control, why they should have less rights against it than against private enterprise I cannot see. In view of the Attorney-General's generous suggestion that he would place himself in the hands of Committee, and that it would not hurt him to accept this new Clause, I hope that the Committee will take advantage of his offer and show him that he would be doing a reasonable thing in reconsidering his position between now and Report.

8.30 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and gallant Friend has asked why public authorities should be protected and not private enterprise. The Public Authorities Protection Act does not in terms refer to a public authority. The reason for the protection given by the Act is that the person concerned is carrying out a public duty, and it is thought that such a person should not be exposed to the sort of action that I have described. The distinction is not between a publicly-owned and a privately-owned body, but between a person performing a public duty and a person who is not. The first person is protected and the second is not.

Captain FRASER: A railway company performs a public duty.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: The learned Attorney-General has suggested that the real distinction is between the body that is performing a public duty and the body that is not performing a public duty. Is there any other case that he knows of in which an authority making private profit for the benefit of private shareholders is protected by this Act? Speaking from
memory I should say that every case to which the Act is at present applied is a case in which the authority or the person is carrying out a public duty at the expense of ratepayers or, if there is any benefit to accrue from the public duty, for the benefit of ratepayers. The real object of providing for the six months in the case of this Act is to enable people who have to provide for the rates each six months to have some knowledge of the possible extent of their liability before the period of the next rate. This board is only a public authority because the Act happens to call it so, because it happens to be appointed, not by the shareholders as many of us think it ought to be, but by the President of the Law Society and various other bodies got together ad hoc for the purpose.
If the profits that are made are for the benefit of shareholders, people who have been injured ought to receive compensation out of those profits, whether they have brought their claim within six months or not. The learned Attorney-General made a great deal of the statement that the Act was to prevent stale claims. If people who have been injured and have not brought their claims within six months are to be deprived, then let everyone be deprived, not merely those who happen to have a claim against a great public body like this London Traffic Board. No one suggests that the owner of a private motor car should have protection after six months, or that the small omnibus owner who happens to be running outside the London area should have this protection.
Speaking for myself I fail entirely to see why this body should receive this protection. The Act was passed in 1893 to codify 180-odd Acts at a time when no public authority was running omnibuses in the streets. It was never applied to railway companies running trains under Acts of Parliament for the benefit of the public, and I submit that it ought not to be applied in this case. The Attorney-General asks whether any of us has had experience of hardship having accrued to individuals through this Act. There is no lawyer in junior practice, who has been at the Bar for more than five years, who has not had at least one case brought to his notice in which people through ignorance have been deprived of their rights because of this Act.
I have come across cases in which clerks to local authorities have deliberately encouraged people to allow six months to go by without taking action. They have corresponded with those people and encouraged them to think that their cases were going to be settled, and then when the six months had elapsed the injured parties found that they had no remedy. I shall be surprised if the Committee refuse to accept the proposed new Clause. It is in the interests of poor people who have to travel daily on the streets of London and who may be injured. These people if they are injured may be detained in hospital for months without the opportunity of getting legal advice, and yet, if they fail to bring their claim within six months against this great statutory company, which is dependent on private capital and is working for private profit, they will be deprived of their rights of action. I appeal to my right. hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, if he cannot accept the new Clause, to give us the hope that between now and the Report. stage he will give this matter further consideration.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. ESSENHIGH: It seems to me that in connection with this matter a great deal of pother is being made about very little. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn) says that great hard-ship may be incurred by poor people who suffer injury. What does it all amount to? They have six months in which to bring proceedings. It is said that there are clerks to local authorities and other people who will put obstacles in their way, but the injured parties have a remedy right away. If they have a capable solicitor a writ or a county court summons will be issued at once. To suggest that they can do nothing for six months is rather playing with the issue. In my respectful submission, there is no reason why public authorities who are using public money, should be deprived of the protection of this Act. The hon. Member for West Nottingham said he doubted whether there was any junior member of the Bar who had not come across cases of hardship in this respect. I have had some years' experience as a junior member of the Bar in a fairly busy provincial city and I have not come across
a single case of hardship of this kind. On the other hand, I have found cases in which this Act has proved a great protection. The Attorney-General has painted out that it is a protection against speculative solicitors. I can unhesitatingly confirm the statement that it is a protection for public authorities against actions of the purely speculative sort, and I earnestly support the Government in their resistance to the attempt to foist this proposal upon the Committee.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

FIRST SCREDULE.—(Undertakings.)

8.42 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 117, line 12, to leave out the words "East Surrey Traction Company," and to insert instead thereof the words:
London General Country Services.
All the Amendments which are on the Paper in connection with this Schedule are consequent upon the fact that various undertakings have changed their names or that businesses have been disposed of to other owners. Some of the Amendments are double Amendments due to the necessity for leaving out one name and inserting another in a different part of the Schedule. In moving this first Amendment, I ask the Committee, with that explanation, to accept the others as drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 117, line 36, leave out the words "The Barking Urban District Council," and insert instead thereof the words:
The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Barking.

In page 118, leave out line 42.

In page 119, leave out line 1.

In page 119, line 7, at the end, insert the words
Glen Omnibus Company (London), Limited."—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 119, to leave out line 17.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This Amendment proposes to leave out the name of I. A. Maxton. I wish to know who is I. A. Maxton? I am sure that the Attorney-General must know. It is a name of some significance.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is the name of a gentleman who has sold his undertaking to the London General Omnibus Company.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can I have an assurance that this has nothing to do with any particular interest represented in the House of Commons?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 119, line 40, at the end, insert the words:
Charles Russett and Son, of 20, St. Peter's Street, St. Albans, Herts.

In page 119, line 43, at the end, insert the words:
F. Steer, of Colne Cottage, London colney, St. Albans, Herts.

In page 120, leave out lines 1 and 2.

In line 9, leave out the word "Omnibus."—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Issue of Transport Stock to Companies owning the Underground Undertakings and distribution of that stock.)

8.46 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 120, line 18, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
subject to the reduction for which provision is made by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section seven of this Act.
This is a drafting Amendment consequent upon the acceptance of the Government Amendment to Clause 7, page 11, line 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 120, line 29, column 2, to leave out "2,953,950," and to insert instead thereof "4,753,950."
This is necessary to cover the issue of £1,800,000 5 per cent. redeemable debenture stock by the Metropolitan District Railway Company since the Schedule was approved by the Joint Select Committee. This additional capital raised by the company was required in connection with the execution of the work of widening the lines westward of Hammersmith and works incidental thereto. The company consulted the Minister, who gave his consent to the amount and terms of the issue, after consultation with the Treasury, and it was agreed that an equivalent amount of transport "A" stock should be issued in exchange.

Captain STRICKLAND: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is a reduction in the capita] of any other undertaking corresponding to this addition? I understand the Metropolitan Company have acquired business since the Bill was printed which necessitated this increased grant to them.

Mr. PYBUS: This is work which it was necessary to carry out—an extension which could not wait. It is not a grant. It is merely a, borrowing of money in order to carry out this work.

Captain STRICKLAND: The point is, Was this known before the Bill was printed in November, 1932, or is it something that could not wait between November, 1932, and to-day?

Mr. PYBUS: I have tried to make it clear that it was something which could not wait.

Captain STRICKLAND: Why was it not inserted originally in the Bill as printed in November?

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that it was not a matter for the Government to decide what should be printed in November. This is a Bill which, by order of the House, had to be introduced and printed as it left the Select Committee.

Captain STRICKLAND: This point was not made clear to the House when we were asked to give the Bill a Second Reading and pass it over to this Session.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am sure the Minister can tell us if the railways have given direct assent to this increase in capital. Have the main line railways given their consent?

Mr. PYBUS: I think the hon. Member misunderstands the position. Of course. the shareholders of the District Railway gave their consent to the raising of this sum of money, but it has nothing to do with the main line railways.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Of course I understand that, but, after all, the railways have come in.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The guarantee is for the Metropoltan Railway. The confusion comes from the fact that the District Railway has as its proper
name the Metropolitan District Railway Company.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 121, line 5, column 2, to leave out "1,000,000," and to insert instead thereof "1,060,000."
This is an Amendment for a similar purpose. It is necessary to cover an issue of £60,000 5 per cent. redeemable debenture stock by the Central London Railway Company since the Schedule was approved by the Joint Select Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 121, line 16, column 2, leave out "3,250,000," and insert instead thereof "4,000,000."—[Mr. Pybus.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 121, line 18, column 1, to leave out the words, "Autocar Services, Limited."
8.52 p.m.
This is a drafting Amendment. We have taken the Autocar Company out of the First Schedule. It is a service whio1 is mainly outside the London passenger transport area. It is, as a matter of fact, a subsidiary of the London General Omnibus Company, and I understand that it is intended in all probability to be taken over by one of the railway companies subsequently.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 121, line 21, column 1, leave out the words "East Surrey Traction Company," and insert instead thereof the words:
London General Country Services."—[The Attorney-General.]

8.53 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 122, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:
£100 5 Per Cent. Redeemable Debenture Stock, 1985–95—R100 5 Per cent. ' A ' do.

Captain STRI CKLAND: May we have some explanation of this Amendment?

Mr. PYBUS: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment in page 120, line 29, in connection with the issue of additional debenture stock by the Metropolitan District Railway Company.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 125, line 28, after the word "deed," insert the word "but."—[Mr. Pybus.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Captain NORTH: I did not quite understand how it was that we made an Amendment on page 121, line 16, involving an increase of £750,000.

Mr. PYBUS: I am glad to have this opportunity to explain that point. The Amendment was necessary to cover an issue of £750,000 5 per cent. cumulative income debenture stock by the London General Omnibus Company since the Schedule was approved by the Joint Select Committee. There again the company consulted. the Minister as to the amount and terms of issue, and he gave his assent, after consultation with the Treasury, and agreed to an issue of £750,000 of "B" transport stock in exchange for the new issue. The money was required mainly for additions or improvements to the omnibus fleet of the company.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Distribution of transport stock issued as consideration for transfer of undertakings to the Board and the winding up of certain companies whose undertakings are transferred.)

Amendment made: In page 126, line 26, after the word "up," insert the words "and dissolution." — [The Attorney-General.]

8.55 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 126, line 27, to leave out the words "Parts I and II, and to insert instead thereof the words "Part I."
This and the following two Amendments go together. They are necessary in order to make it plain that statutory companies are to be kept outside the provisions of the Companies Act with regard to winding up and are to be governed by the provisions which we have already passed in Clause 86 and to the provisions in this Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 126, line 29, at the end, insert the words:
(which companies are in this Schedule referred to as ' the Underground Companies ') and of the Metropolitan Company.

In line 36, leave out the words "such company," and insert instead thereof the words:
company which is directed to be wound up by the last preceding paragraph.

In page 127, line 9, leave out from the word "day," to the word "to," in line 13, and insert instead thereof the words "such date."—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 127, line 14, to leave out the word "company," and to insert instead thereof the words:
of the Underground principal companies and of the Metropolitan Company.
This Amendment and the next are consequential on the Metropolitan agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 127, line 15, after the word "stock," insert the words:
(other than the Four per cent. Terminable Debenture Stock of the Metropolitan Company).

In line 19, leave out the words "issue or cause to be issued," and insert instead thereof the words:
subject as hereinafter provided distribute or cause to be distributed.

In line 24, leave out the words "under any such agreement or award as aforesaid," and insert instead thereof the words:
by virtue of Part II of the Fourth Schedule to this Act."—[The Attorney-General.]

8.58 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 127, line 28, after the word "that," to insert the words:
(i) where the amount of transport stock to which a person would be so entitled comprises a fractional part of a pound the company distributing or causing to be distributed the transport stock shall, in lieu of distributing or causing to be distributed that amount, distribute or cause to be distributed to that person transport stock to the amount of the next even pound below the amount to which he would be so entitled, and the company shall sell, or cause to be sold, the amount of stock representing the
fractional parts not so distributed and shall distribute, or cause to be distributed, the net proceeds thereof in due proportion amongst the several stockholders who, but for this provision, would have been entitled to the fractional parts; and
(ii) 
This Amendment will enable the difficulties involved in the distribution of odd fractions of stock to be avoided. These fractional parts will be sold and the fractions due to the stockholders paid over in cash.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 127, line 37, leave out the first word "The," and insert instead thereof the words:
Subject to the provisions of this Act the registers of members and."—[The Attorney-General.]

9.0 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 128, line 11, to leave out from the word "assets," to the word "shall" in line 16, and to insert instead thereof the words:
retained by the company or repaid to the company by the board under Section eighty of this Act (not being sums which by that section are to, be applied to the payment of interest on the debenture stocks of the company).
We made an Amendment to Clause 80 which provided that the board would repay to the companies their undistributed earnings in order that the directors of the companies might make a final distribution. This Amendment is purely consequential upon that Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

9.1 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 128, line 18, to leave out the word "distributed," and to insert instead thereof the words:
deemed to be profits of the company available for immediate distribution as dividend and shall be distributed accordingly.
This Amendment is to enable directors to do something which generally is forbidden once a company is in liquidation, that is, to distribute its earnings. The Amendment will allow the directors to do that.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 128, line 37, to leave out
from the word "of" to the word "shall," in line 39, and to insert instead thereof the words:
securities or money into court by trustees under Section sixty-three of the Trustee Act, 1925, and that section.
This is a drafting Amendment merely to produce greater clarity and to make it obvious that the Bill refers to Section 53 of the Trustee Act in this particular place.

Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(Issue of transport stock to certain local authorities) agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(London Passenger Transport Area.)

9.3 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 130, line 4, to leave out the words "restriction under," and to insert instead thereof the words:
being subject to the restriction imposed by proviso (ii) to Sub-section (1) of Section fifteen of.
This Amendment is a drafting Amendment. Doubt has arisen as to whether the board will be allowed to run services on the roads marked blue on the map without being licensed by the traffic commissioners. I understand that there will be no restrictions to the board's services in picking up and putting down passengers, but if my Amendment is accepted it will make the matter quite clear.

9.4 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As my hon. Friend says, this is a drafting Amendment. The word s to which he refers do not have the effect which it was feared that they might have, namely, to exempt the board from the necessity of obtaining road service licences like other people on the spur roads, that is those roads which stick out from the circle of the area. I am afraid the words are necessary for another purpose. If we left them out the Bill would not be effective to do what it says and what is intended; but the words do not have the effect of exempting the Transport Board from the necessity for obtaining road service licences on those particular roads.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: In view of what the learned Attorney-General has said, I beg leave to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions relating to purchase of property of provincial operating companies, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 130, line 29, after the word "District," insert the word "Traction."

In page 131, line 20, after the word "District," insert the word "Traction."

In page 131, line 13, leave out the word "Thirty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "Thirty-three."

In page 132, line 7, leave out the word "Service," and insert instead thereof the word "Services."—[Mr. Pybus.]

Seventh Schedule—(Provisions with respect to the Railway Rates Tribunal) agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions which are to form the basis of the pooling scheme.)

Amendments made: In page 136, line 1, leave out the word "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words "Rates Tribunal."

In line 42, leave out the word "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words "Rates Tribunal."—[Mr. Pybus.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this, as amended, be the Eighth Schedule to the Bill."

9.8 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This is a long Schedule, and we are going on very well, and I think I might ask the Minister to give us a short and clear description of the pooling scheme. We have not had it yet, and I am sure he must have the information. It is not quite right to ask us to pass this Schedule without a clear statement of exactly what it is that has been arranged.

9.9 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will certainly give my hon. Friend a short explanation. Whether it will be clear I am not so sure, but I hope it will be. In substance, the pooling arrangement is one under which the Traffic Board pay into the pool the whole of their receipts. The main lines concerned also pay into the pool their receipts in respect of their suburban traffic, but not, of course, their receipts in respect of their main line traffic. Those two contributions make the pool. There are certain charges which are defrayed out of the pool—the charges for the carrying-on of the pool, and from the pool, or rather the railway companies' share of the pool, is paid any sum which is necessary to implement the guarantee of the rates of interest upon the assented stock. My hon. Friend is perhaps aware that the assented stock is something which the holders of ordinary stock in the Metropolitan Railway may receive and enjoy the interest on for a term of years—3½ per cent. for 15 years and 3 per cent. for 10 years. That is a short account of the pool, and I hope it is sufficiently clear.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What happens if there are no profits?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The word I used was "receipts." It is not a question of profits. It is the receipts that go into the pool.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that one of the parties who contribute to the pool guarantees something. They cannot guarantee it if they have not sufficient, receipts to cover their expenses, and something over with which to give that guarantee.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: The receipts which will be paid into the pool will so far exceed the maximum liability under the guarantee that there is no possible danger of that. I can assure my hon. Friend of that. I have forgotten the precise figure, but the maximum liability under the railway companies' guarantee is far under the total sum that will be paid into the pool by the railway companies in any event.

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential and minor Amendments to be made in the Road Traffic Act, 1930)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 138, line 32, at the end, to insert the words:
In Sub-section (2) the words ' Sections seventy-two and seventy-four of this Act in their application ' shall be substituted for the words ' and Section seventy-two of this Act in its application.' 
By this 'Amendment we are taking advantage of an opportunity to amend a flaw in the Road Traffic Act. At present no notice need be given by the Traffic Commissioners to a local authority when they grant a road service licence. After these words have been inserted it will not be necessary for the Traffic Commissioners to give the local authorities notice of the revocation of a road traffic licence.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 139, line 13, to leave out the words from "words," to the end of line 16, and to insert instead thereof the words:
'So much of the administrative county of Essex as lies outside the Metropolitan Police District,' there shall be substituted the words So much of the administrative county of Essex as lies outside the Metropolitan Traffic Area,' and the words So much of the administrative county of Hertford as lies outside the Metropolitan Police District ' shall be omitted.
It is necessary to insert the words of this Amendment in consequence of Amendments which the Committee made in Clause 49 defining the area of the Metropolitan Traffic Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 139, line 25, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "Wycombe," in line 26, and to insert instead thereof the words "the portion of the rural district of."
This Amendment is consequential upon the last Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Constitution of the London and Horne Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.)

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 140, to leave out line 11
9.16 p.m.
I am not proposing to argue this Amendment at any very great length, because its purpose appears to us to be obvious. We are unable to see why the Council of the City of Westminster should be entitled' to special representation. I believe that the original intention was for six members to be appointed from the Metropolitan boroughs, but that was increased to seven, and that the Council of the City of Westminster was given special status. The problem of traffic is one that concerns the whole of London, and we are of the opinion that if the City of Westminster have any special qualifications they would be better able to convince the other Metropolitan councils of their importance if they acted in conjunction with them in whatever way they might be grouped. We are asking the Minister to accept our Amendment that the Council of the City of Westminster should not have special representation, and should not be singled out from the other Metropolitan boroughs. The City of Westminster ought to take its chance with the other Metropolitan boroughs, so far as representation upon the London Traffic Advisory Committee is concerned.

9.18 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) proposes to deprive the City of Westminster of the privileged position which it occupies in the Schedule. The City of Westminster has a status entirely unique, and has very peculiar responsibilities in connection with traffic. The spot in London at which the largest amount of road traffic takes place, day in and day out, is Hyde Park Corner, which is in the City of Westminster. When you reflect, further, that the City of Westminster includes such important centres of traffic as Trafalgar Square, the Strand, Piccadilly Circus—which is a place of which we have all heard—and part of Oxford Street, hon. Members will say that there is probably no other place in the London area which can compare in responsibilities or position with Westminster. Westminster is included in the Traffic Advisory Committee by having one representative. Westminster will not have any particular sway in the councils of the Advisory Committee unless it can convince other members of the committee to
act with it. It is only one out of 40, and we ought not to grudge the City of Westminster the distinction of being named in this Bill. Moreover, I hope that it is not improper to suggest to the Committee that, as we conduct our deliberations in Westminster, we should like our City to be represented in this Bill.

Amendment negatived.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 141, to leave out lines 3 to 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
One—By the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of these interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons (other than the board and the Amalgamated Railway Companies) providing or using mechanically-propelled road vehicles within the London Traffic Area.
One—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of these interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons (other than the board and the Amalgamated Railway Companies) providing or using horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area.
One—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of these interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of the taxi-cab industry within the London Traffic Area."
9.20 p.m.
This Amendment, which is designed to meet the point made in an Amendment which appears upon the Order Paper in the name of some of my hon. Friends, provides additional representation on the Advisory Committee for people who use the roads. When the Bill left the Select Committee, there was a proposal that there should be two representatives of people who use the roads, and one of the parties was to be chosen as a representative of the drivers of taxicabs. It was then thought, upon reflection, that that was giving representation to a rather limited number of persons, and that it would not give any representation to the numerous class of persons who are interested as owners of taxicabs. The plan that we have adopted, and which I hope will meet the objection of my hon. Friends' Amendment, is to increase the number of representatives whom. I have mentioned from two to three, and then slightly to alter the nature of the representation. The first of the three will represent people, other than the board of a railway company, who provide or use mechanically-propelled road vehicles
within the London traffic area. The Minister has to choose somebody to sit in the interests of that group of persons.
The next is that the Minister has to choose somebody to represent the interests of persons using horse-drawn road vehicles. Some people may say, "Why horse-drawn road vehicles? "We should all be very sorry if the horse-drawn vehicle should disappear entirely. I believe that a certain number of people have found that it is more economical to employ the horse-drawn vehicle than one which is mechanically propelled. As long as there is a considerable body of such persons, they certainly ought not to be shouldered out of their rights on the road, to which they may almost be said to have a prescriptive right. No one will begrudge the horse-drawn vehicle its place, and long may it remain there. The last of the three is to be a representative of the taxicab industry. The Minister has to choose somebody, alter consultation with all the persons engaged, and I hope that the person will be someone truly representative of those who are interested in the taxicab industry as drivers and not only as owners.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

9.24 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 13, to leave out the words "taxicab industry," and to insert instead thereof the words "drivers of taxicabs."
This manuscript Amendment would reinstate some of the words which have been taken out of the Bill. The Attorney-General has given us the reasons why the alteration is to take place, but we are not convinced that drivers of taxicabs would not be better upon the Advisory Committee than those persons whom the Minister proposes to cover the interests of the taxicab industry. We would like the Minister to reinstate those words, in order that the men who are engaged in driving the taxicabs through our congested city may confer upon the Advisory Committee the advantage of their experience. If the Schedule is left as it is proposed to be altered by the Minister, namely, to include a representa-
tive of the taxicab industry, that representative may be any person with money invested in taxicabs, whether that person knows anything about traffic or not. We think that our Amendment is reasonable, and that it will give the Advisory Committee the benefit of the very best available advice. If the Amendment which the Minister has moved were only a drafting Amendment we could understand it, but the Minister is limiting himself by not taking advantage of the experience that is available. I am not proposing to talk at any length on the matter because it is self-evident. We are not asking that the taxi-drivers should be represented, but that the interests of the taxi-drivers should be provided for in the Bill. We hope the Minister will reinsert the words which he has moved to leave out, so that the interests of the drivers of taxicabs may have representation.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. COLMAN: I rise to support the Amendment, because I cannot help feeling that if the Amendment is adopted it will go a very long way towards removing what some of my hon. Friends and myself have regarded as not only an unfortunate, but a rather serious, omission in the Bill as it was drafted. There is the inclusion on the London Traffic and Home Counties Advisory Committee of a representative of the interests of the providers and users of horse-drawn traffic.

The CHAIRMAN: At this moment we are on the proposed Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. COLMAN: I am sorry.

9.27 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My feeling would be to accept the hon. Member's suggestion, but, after reflection and a little inquiry, I think it is better that we should not put in the words "taxi drivers," for this reason, that if you do you may probably find drivers of other vehicles who are in larger number's than the drivers of taxi-cabs. There are, for example, the drivers of lorries that are so numerous in our London streets. The Committee will observe that on the Advisory Committee there are no fewer than five representatives of what is called Labour. It says:
representative of those interests as he may think fit to represent the interest of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London Traffic area.
The driver of a taxi-cab is either labour engaged in the transport industry or he may be the owner of a taxi-cab. If he is the owner he will obviously be represented by the third of the three persons named in my Amendment as representing the interests of the taxi-cab industry. Having regard to the fact that the five representatives of labour will include one representative of the taxi drivers, I think it is better to leave the Amendment as I have proposed it.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

9.30 p.m.

Mr. COLMAN: I desire to support the Amendment on the Order Paper as it appears in the name of the Minister. It so happens that some time ago some of my hon. Friends and myself put down an Amendment to give effect to a somewhat similar principle, the principle of including a representative on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee for the special purpose of representing the interests of the providers and users of horse-drawn traffic. It now appears from this Amendment, which we see on the Order Paper for the first time to-day, that the Minister is seeking to give effect to this sentiment. For this reason, I desire to support him and at a later stage to withdraw my Amendment. Our original Amendment was put down at the instigation and request of the National Horse Association of Great Britain which is the only organisation in this country which may claim fully to represent every known breed of horses. I can assure the Committee, speaking on behalf of that organisation, that they attach the very greatest importance to this particular Amendment and I am glad to have this opportunity of publicly thanking the Minister for the very considerate way he has met us in regard to this important matter.
We have already heard this afternoon that provision has been made for the special representation of the taxi-cab industry. I am all in favour of that, but it does seem logical that we should also give representation to those who are interested in horse-drawn vehicles, because we have to remember that there are in London to-day an enormous number of
horse-drawn vehicles that are used by traders in connection with their business, because they find them by far the cheapest and best form of transport for their particular class of work. It is also alleged that from time to time the interest of motor traffic conflicts with the interest of horse-drawn vehicles, and for that reason I think it is manifest that it would be impossible for one representative to represent both interests. Even if he could do so, he certainly could not lay claim to being able to put forward the views of both interests in the way they would wish. For these reasons, I welcome the Amendment and desire to support it. I think it will be said by all those who are interested in horse-drawn traffic and in horse-breeding generally that they are very greatly indebted to the Minister for the fair and considerate way he has met the point put forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this, as amended, be the Tenth Schedule to the Bill."

9.33 p.m.

Mr. ATKINSON: May I ask who is the Secretary of State referred to in line 7 of page 140? The Minister is defined on page 114 as the Minister of Transport, and I should like to know to whom the "Secretary of State" refers.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It will be the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. It has been customary so to describe the Secretary of State in Acts of Parliament and, as the hon. Member knows, "Secretary of State" meant at one time one person, and although we now have several Secretaries of State it is not uncommon to describe the Secretary of State for Home Affairs simply as "the Secretary of State."

9.34 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Schedule says that one Member will be appointed by the Secretary of State to represent the Metropolitan Police. This Bill has been extended very considerably, and we ought to make quite sure that there is sufficient representation of the police outside the Metropolitan district. I do not wish the Minister to pledge himself to change this, but I would ask him to consult with the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State, and make quite certain
that there is adequate police representation both inside and outside the Metropolitan area.

Eleventh Schedule (Consequential and minor Amendments to he made in the London Traffic Act, 1924) agreed to.

TWELFTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to determination of compensation payable to officers and servants.)

9.35 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 143, line 36, to leave out the words "under any Under-ground undertaking," and to insert instead thereof the words:
which would, in accordance with the customary practice of the undertaking, be reckoned as service with that undertaking.
This is to provide for the service of employés who are transferred to the new undertaking, and to provide that the customary practice of the company in which they were formerly employed, as regards reckoning their years of service, shall still apply when they have been transferred to the new undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Thirteenth Schedule (Provisions as to the making and approval of schemes applying the Rail ways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, to the undertaking of the board) and Fourteenth Schedule (Enactments repealed) agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Proceedings of Appointing Trustees.)

1. The representative of the Advisory Committee shall be selected by that committee from amongst the members of the committee appointed by local authorities or groups of local authorities and shall hold office as such represestative for a term of three years. Notice of the appointment of such representative shall be given by the committee to the Minister.

2. The Minister shall take such steps as may be necessary as soon as may be after the passing of this Act for summoning the first meeting of the Appointing Trustees.

3. The Appointing Trustees shall appoint-from amongst their number a chairman.

4. Every question at a meeting of the Appointing Trustees shall be decided by
a majority of votes of the members present and voting on that question, and in the case of equality of votes the person presiding at the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.

5. A minute of the proceedings of the Appointing Trustees signed at the same or the next meeting by a member of the Trustees describing himself as, or appearing to be, the person presiding at the meeting at which the minute is signed shall be received in evidence without further proof.

6. Until the contrary is proved every meeting of the Trustees in respect of the proceedings whereof a minute has been so made shall be deemed to have been duly convened and held.

7. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule the Appointing Trustees may regulate their own procedure.

8. No act or proceeding of the Appointing Trustees shall be questioned on account of the appointment of any member having been defective.—[Mr. Pybus.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
This Schedule is consequential on the Amendment already made to Clause 1 transferring the duty of appointing the members of the board from the Minister to a body of appointing trustees. We discussed this matter at some length at the earlier stage, and this new Schedule provides the machinery.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
Three Appointing Trustees shall constitute a quorum.
8.38 p.m.
I observe that there is no provision in the Schedule for any less number than five constituting a quorum, and, just as it is necessary when framing Articles for dealing with boards of directors—

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. May I ask if this is in order? Have we not passed the Schedule?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The Hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. The first Question that I had to put was, "That the Schedule be read a Second time,' and, that having been agreed to, it is in order for any hon. Member to move Amendments to the new Schedule.

Mr. ATKINSON: I think that the same rule would probably apply as in the case of boards of directors, that, unless there were some provision authorising less than the full number to exercise the powers given to the appointing trustees, a serious question might be raised as to whether what they did was within their powers or not if a lesser number than the whole were purporting to exercise them. I do not mind whether the quorum -consists of three, or four, or any other number. I merely move the Amendment for the purpose of raising the point.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: It was not thought necessary to fix the number of appointing trustees that should constitute a quorum. It was originally thought that the matter might be left to the trustees themselves. At the same time, the Government see no objection to fixing the quorum in the Bill, and, accordingly, they are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Issue of Transport Stock to the Metropolitan Railway Company and Distribution of that Stork.)

PART I.

The amount of stock to be issued to the Metropolitan Railway Company shall be as follows and of the following classes:

Amount and Class of Transport Stock to be issued.

£7,288,676–4½ per cent. A Stock.
£2,000,000–5 per cent. A Stock.
£4,489,797–B Stock.
£5,115,600—C Stock.

With the addition of £70 B Transport Stock for each £100 of Metropolitan 3 per cent. Convertible Preference Stock not converted into Metropolitan Consolidated Stock by virtue of section (Provisions as to certain stocks of the Metropolitan Railway Company) of this Act and £67 10s. 0d. C Transport Stock for each £100 Metropolitan 31 per cent. Convertible Preference Stock so converted.

PART II.

The Transport Stock issued to the Metropolitan Railway Company shall be distributed amongst the holders of the various classes of stocks of that company at the rates of substitution specified in the following scales:

Original Stock and Substituted Stock.

For £100 5 per cent. Redeemable Debenture Stock (1957–62)—£100 5 per cent. A Transport Stock.
316
For £100 3½ per cent. Debenture Stock— £77 15s. 7d. 4½ per cent. A Transport Stock.
For £100 3½ per cent. A Debenture Stock— £77 15s. 7d. 4½ per cent. A Transport Stock.
For £100 3½ per cent. Preference Stock— £70 5 per cent. B Transport Stock.
For £100 3½ per cent. A Preference Stock— £70 5 per cent. B Transport Stock.
For £100 3½ per cent. Convertible Preference Stock (not so converted into Consolidated Stock)—£70 5 per cent. B Transport Stock.
For £100 5 per cent. Preference Stock, 1914–£100 5 per cent. B Transport Stock.
For £100 Consolidated Stock—£67 10s. C Transport Stock.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
9.42 p.m.
This Schedule sets out the amount of the Transport Stock which is to be issued in exchange to the Metropolitan Railway Company, and the rates at which the exchange has been made in accordance with the settlement with that company.

Captain STRICKLAND: May I ask whether this again represents something that has transpired since the time when this Measure left the Joint Committee and was printed?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and gallant Friend has asked that question once or twice in different forms. I think he is under a little misapprehension. The Bill was printed in July, 1931, and the House has decided that it should be carried forward into this Session in the form in which it was printed in July, 1931. The arrangement with the Metropolitan Railway Company has been arrived at quite recently in this present year, and, inasmuch as the arrangement was not in existence in July, 1931, it could not possibly be included in the Bill as then printed.

Captain STRICKLAND: I desire to express my gratitude to the Attorney-General for his kindness in explaining this matter, but the point I want to emphasise is that the Bill which is before the House cannot be the same Bill which left the Joint Committee.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: May I ask whether, in the case of the "C" Stock which is to be issued to the Metro-
politan Railway Company, it is stock on which the dividend is guaranteed by the five main line railway companies?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The stock of which the dividend is guaranteed is the Assented Stock, which bears a rate of interest of 3½ per cent. for 15 years and 3 per cent. for 10 years. That is the stock on which the interest is guaranteed by the five main line railway companies.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: What interest does this stock bear, and in what form is it guaranteed?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I thought I said that it bore interest at the rate of 3¼ per cent. for 15 years and 3 per cent. for 10 years.

Bill reported; as amended, (in Committee and on re-committal), to be con-
sidered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Dart-ford, which was presented on the 7th day of December, 1932, be approved."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain A. Hudson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes before Ten o'Clock.